
r rrd- 



Issued October 10, 1910. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 



BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY.— Bulletin 125, Part 1. 

A. D. MELVIN, Chief of Bureau. 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES 
OF THE CESTODE GENUS MULTICEPS. 



I. HISTORICAL REVIEW. 



BY 

MAURICE C. HALL, 
Junior Zoologist, Zoological Division. 




WASHINGTON : 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1910. 



THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 



Chief: A. D. Melvin. 

Assistant Chief: A. M. Farrington. 

Chief Cleric: Charles C. Carroll. 

Animal Husbandry Division: George M. Rommel, chief. 

Biochemic Division: M. Dorset, chief. 

Dairy Division: B. H. Rawl, chief. 

Inspection Division: Rice P. Steddom, chief; Morris Wooden, R. A. Ramsay, and 

Albert E. Behnke, associate chiefs. 
Pathological Division: John R. Mohler, chief. 
Quarantine Division: Richard W. Hickman, chief. 
Zoological Division: B. H. Ransom, chief. 
Experiment Station: E. C. Schroeder, superintendent. 
Editor: James M. Pickens. 



zoological division. 



Chief: B. H. Ransom. 
Assistant Zoologist: Albert Hassall. 

Junior Zoologists: Harry W. Graybill, Maurice C. Hall, Howard Crawley, and 
WiNTHROP D. Foster. 



Issued October 10, 1910. 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY.— Bulletin 125, Part 1. 

A. D. MF.LVIN, Chief of Bureau. 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES 
OF THE CESTODE GENUS MULTICEPS. 



I. HISTORICAL REVIEW. 



BY 



MAURICE C. HALL, 
'f 

Junior Zoologist, Zoological Division. 




WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

1910 









LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 



U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Animal Industry, 

Washington, D. C, June 16, 1910. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, and to recommend for 
pubhcation as a bulletin, the accompanying manuscript entitled 
"The Gid Parasite and Allied Species of the Cestode Genus Multiceps. 
Part 1. Historical review," by Maurice C. Hall, of the Zoological 
Division of this Bureau. 

Mr. Hall has been making a most comprehensive study of gid, and 
his investigations will furnish an important contribution to our knowl- 
edge of this deadly disease of sheep, which has only in recent years 
been recognized as established in the United States, the first definite 
evidence of its presence as an enzootic having been published in 1905 
in Bureau of Animal Industry Bulletin 66. 

It is intended to publish later, as succeeding parts of the present 
bulletin, the results of Mr. Hall's investigations, now in progress, con- 
cerning the morphology and life histories of the parasites in question, 
as well as the symptomatology, treatment, prophylaxis, etc., of gid. 

Respectfully, 

A. D. Melvin, 

Chief of Bureau . 
Hon. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 



OCT 25 1910 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Introduction 5 

Multiceps multiceps 6 

Historical sketch 6 

Gid in the United States 16 

Gid in Canada 29 

The hosts and occurrences of the larval Multiceps multiceps 30 

The occurrences of the adult Multiceps multiceps 41 

Economic importance of gid 42 

Alleged causes of gid 46 

Names applied to gid and giddy animals 47 

Common names of the gid parasite 49 

Synonymy 50 

Multiceps serialis 56 

Historical sketch 56 

The hosts and occurrences of the larval Multiceps serialis 58 

The occurrences of the adult Multiceps serialis 63 

Economic importance 64 

Synonymy 65 

Multiceps lemuris 66 

Historical sketch y. 66 

Synonymy 66 

Multiceps polytiiberculosus 67 

Historical sketch 67 

Synonymy 67 

Multiceps spalacis 67 

Historical sketch 67 

Synonymy 67 

Cysticercus hotryoides 68 

Historical sketch 68 

Synonymy 68 

Acephalocystis ovis tragelaphi 68 

Historical sketch 68 

Synonymy '. 68 



ILLUSTRATION. 



Fig. 1. — Map of Montana, showing distribution of gid in sheep 25 

3 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES OF THE 
CESTODE GENUS MULTICEPS. 



PART I. HISTORICAL REVIEW. 



INTRODUCTION. 

Coenurus is the name comraonly applied to a larval cestode group 
of considerable importance to helminthologists from a historical and 
scientific standpoint, for it was with one of its species, commonly 
referred to as Ccenurus cerehralis, that Steenstrup's theory of the 
alternation of generations was first completely demonstrated for 
cestodes by Kiichenmeister, who, in 1853, produced the adult cestode 
or tapeworm in the primary host by feeding the larval form to the 
dog, and produced the larval cestode or bladderworm in the secondary 
host by feeding the eggs of the adult tapeworm to the sheep. This 
work of Kiichenmeister's and that of Von Siebold along the same line 
is taken by Braun (1894a), '^ in his classic work on cestodes, as marking 
the beginning of the fourth and latest period in helminthology, dating 
from 1851. 

This same species, C. cerehralis, is of considerable economic interest 
to veterinarians and stock raisers, and especially to sheepmen, as 
being the cause of the disease commonly known among English- 
speaking people as gid. 

In spite of the fact that the disease caused by this parasite, as well 
as something of its nature, was probably known in the fourth and 
fifth centuries B. C, and that the parasite itself was observed at least 
as early as 1634 A. D., its parasitic nature known since 1780, and its 
life history known for over half a century, there are still some mistaken 
popular ideas about it, and also some errors, disagreements, and uncer- 
tainties in the writings of scientists as to the specific identity of this 
and various other forms of coenurus that have been described from 
different hosts, and also as to the correctness with which certain par- 

« Bibliographic citations refer, wherever possible, to Stiles and Hassall's (1902-19 — ) 
Index-Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology, Authors, Bureau of Animal Indus- 
try Bulletin 39, United States Department of Agriculture. References not in Bul- 
letin 39 are indicated by the use of Greek letters and will be covered in a supplemental 
bibliography, to be published later. 

5 



6 THE GID PAEASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

asites are listed from certain hosts. The writer has endeavored to 
correct some of these errors in this paper, and it is proposed in a series 
of papers to give a comprehensive account of the cestodes having a 
coenurus larva. 

The first form to be considered is the brain bladderworm of sheep, 
usually known as Ccenurus cerebralis, but which, as will be shown, 
should be known by the name Multice])s multiceps, proposed here for 
the first time. In this article the word "coenurus " will not usually be 
capitalized ; it will be used merely as the name of a larval stage, hke 
the words " cysticercus," "cercaria," "leptocephalus," etc. It is not 
entitled to be used as a generic or subgeneric name, owing to the pri- 
ority of Multiceps, but as it is still much more commonly used in this 
way than Multiceps, and as reference must be constantly made to 
quotations where it is used in combination with some specific name, 
especially in the form Ccenurus cerehralis, it will often be clearer to 
use this form instead of the correct one. 

MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

Braun (1894a) makes his first period in helminthology cover the 
work of antiquity and the middle ages up to 1600, and in the litera- 
ture of this period, relatively barren from a scientific standpoint, 
almost no references are to be found that can be construed as refer- 
ring to gid. However, a disease like gid, involving, as it does, a deli- 
cate arrangement of alternating hosts, must have existed long before 
primitive man passed from the hunting to the pastoral stage. It is 
not the sort of disease to arise by rapid facultative adjustment 
or out-of-hand adaptation. The very fact that gid exists to-day is 
proof enough in a disease of this sort that it existed thousands of 
3^ears ago. Undoubtedly, in the days when the ancestral dog pur- 
sued the wild sheep, the nice adaptation of a brain parasite that would 
interfere with muscular activity and blunt the sense perceptions, 
making flight and escape difficult, must have furnished a striking 
example of a life habit well calculated to perpetuate a parasite, but it 
could scarcely have been more satisfactory than the new arrange- 
ment introduced by man when he domesticated the sheep and put 
its former enemy, the dog, in charge of it to run over its pastures 
as a constant companion and to eat the discarded heads and diseased 
brains of giddy sheep — an enemy still. 

A prolonged search of ancient literature would no doubt show some 
references which might readily be taken as descriptions of gid. The 
symptoms are so striking that pastoral peoples, like the Arabs, Jews, 
and Greeks, must have noted and described them; but finding such 
references involves a tedious search and more time than can profitably 
be spent on the work. 



HISTOKICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 7 

One such reference occurs in Kuhn's edition of Hippocrates 
(1825^), who is beUeved to have lived 460 to 375 B. C. The follow- 
ing is quoted from Adams's translation of Hippocrates (1886ar), 
describing excess of fluids on the brain in epilepsy: 

This you may ascertain in particular, from beasts of the fiock [i. e. , sheep] which are 
seized with this disease, and more especially goats, for they are most frequently 
attacked with it. If you will cut open the head you will find the brain humid, full 
of sweat, and having a bad smell. 

It is, of course, impossible to make a positive statement of fact on 
anything less than complete and accurate observations. Obviously 
there was no one in the time of Hippocrates who could be expected to 
make and record such observations in a case of gid, and existing 
editions of Hippocrates are open to the suspicion of having in them 
observations not properly referable to Hippocrates. Hence we can 
not say certainly that Hippocrates actually saw cases of gid, but on 
the strength of the reference given, agreeing as it does with the 
certainty that gid among sheep must have existed for ages, it is fair 
to state that Hippocrates probably saw cases of gid four or five 
centuries before the Christian era. The fact that the brain of sheep 
was found full of fluid points, among other things, to hydrocephaly, 
which may follow the invasion of the gid parasite, according to 
Miiller (1877a), or to the gid parasite itself. Gid probablj'- was not 
rare in those days when sheep were everywhere tended by dogs and 
the prophylaxis of the disease was undreamed of. The "bad smell" 
may have been due to delay in post-mortem examination, to hydro- 
cephalus purulentus as a sequel of gid, or it may easily have been 
noted in the coenurus vesicle, as my own observations show that 
the coenurus fluid serves as an excellent medium for decomposition 
bacteria, the odor of the fluid in a graduate becoming intolerable in 
twenty-four hours at ordinary room temperature. Guetebruch 
(1766nr), according to Kuchenmeister (1880a), states in an article 
on gid that when perforation of the skull occurs, as it sometimes 
does in gid, the brain decomposes and becomes purulent, the brain 
and bone marrow turning to water and becoming putrid. The writer 
has never seen such a case, but it is evident that if the perforation 
of the skull were followed by perforation of the skin as well, it 
would afford entrance to bacteria, with possibly a result similar 
to the one given. Finally, the fact that these post-mortem findings 
are given for sheep suffering from "the sacred disease," a term 
covering epilepsy and other brain disorders, would indicate the 
possibility of gid, as the symptoms of nervous disturbances are very 
marked in this disease. Adams, the translator of Hippocrates from 
whom the foregoing quotation is taken, and himself a physician, refers 
to the lines quoted as follows : 

It is well known that this is also the case with sheep, and that they are subject to 
the disease called the sturdy [i. e., gid], which is indisputably a sort of epilepsy. 



8 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

In the somewhat limited literature on helminthology for the 
period from 1600 to 1800, Braun's (1894a) second period, the gid 
parasite figures to a proportionally large and increasing extent. The 
citations from this period are given rather fully, as they are in works 
which are not readily available to many. 

In the first part of the nineteenth century, Braun's (1894a) third 
period, there are numerous references to gid, and since 1850 and the 
work of Kiichenmeister, which was done soon after, not a year' 
has passed in which few to many notes on the brain bladderworm, 
its adult tapeworm, or its effects, have not appeared. This increase 
in the amount of literature is perhaps concomitant with an increase in 
number and distribution of sheep and cases of gid, as well as with 
increasing knowledge of the parasite. In general the large amount of 
literature is due to the attractive combination of scientific and eco- 
nomic interest which has induced many persons to publish notes on 
the disease and its parasite from one or both standpoints. 

The early notes on coenurus deal only with Ccenurus cerehralis 
(= MnUiceps multiceps) and especially with the disease caused by it. 
It was nearly two hundred years after Scultetus (1672a) had seen 
the first unmistakable case of gid that I have found recorded, before 
the first coenurus which we may regard as other than C. cerehralis 
was noted by De Blainville (1828a). Scultetus saw his case in 1634. 

The first available note published during Braun's (1894a) second 
period of helminthology dealing with C. cerehralis is that of Rolfinck 
(1656a) who, in a work on medical anatomy, writes of vesicles full of 
water and humor in the third ventricle of sheep as the cause of a 
vertigo. This may be safely accepted as a reference to C. cerehralis. 
The description is in general terms just the one a casual observer 
would give of this parasite, as witness the statement of a correspondent 
to the veterinary editor of a periodical (Vet. Ed. Amer. Shepherd's 
Bulletin 1903;-) to the effect that he found in a sheep's head "a bag 
of water which burst and ran out when I pressed upon it." 

The next available article on the subject of gid published during this 
period is that of Wepfer (1658a). The part relating to C. cerehralis 
gives at this early date notes on the characteristic symptoms of the 
disease, its pathology, and the morphology of the water bladder. 
The disease is further recorded as a frequent cause of death in cattle, 
and the peasants are credited with a form of operation involving 
percussion and surprisingly good for that date. 

Heusinger (1853ar) quotes from a work of Bartholinus (lQQ7a), 
not available to me, a statement of a species of frenzy and vertigo 
which in 1661 attacked horses, cattle, and sheep, and notes that 
worms were found in the heads of the animals attacked. These cases 
may have included, and very likely did include, cases of gid. 

The next available article dealing with C. cerehralis is that of 
Scultetus (1672a), who in a Latin treatise on surgery gives the 






HISTOKICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 9 

description of a case seen at the earliest date at which we have found 
a case recorded. The following is quoted from an English translation 
of the same work (Scultetus, 1674a) : 

Observation X. Of a Vertigo in a Sheep, proceeding from an Abscess in the Brain. 

In the Year 1634, December the 24th. Being in the shop of Nicolas Kite « he made 
mention of his sheep, among which one was troubled with a Vertigo, or Giddiness, 
the Germans call it Wirbling: this Disease one who dealt in sheep affirmed to be inci- 
dent to the fairest of the Flock; that hereby their whole Brain would be turned into 
Water and then they would fall down dead on a sudden. The Chyrurgion therefore 
commanded that one of those sheep which was weakened with this Giddiness, and 
turning around, should be killed, and sent me the head. 

Scultetus found nothing in the ventricle. 

Afterward I lifted up the organs of smelling * * * and on the left -side, between 
the Brain and the Pia mater, I found an abscess, like the Bladder of a Fish, full of 
very clear water * * * I wondered that * * * the sheep should not labour 
under an Apoplexy, or a Palsy, rather than a Vertigo. 

In 1645 Scultetus lost a sheep by the same disease, and in the work 
just noted writes: 

I dissected the Head * * * and presently on the left-side as it were of the 
backward part of the Head, under the Dura Mater, I found a Bag of the thickness of a 
Fisches Blader, filled with Water, and little Worms, such as are bred in Cheese; for 
it began to putrefie at the bottom. This Coated Tumour being bigger than a Hens 
Egg, had so insinuated itself into the substance of the Brain, that it did somewhat 
press upon the third Ventricle. This Sheep, as the Shepheard reports, turned herself 
round about towards the night b all that day she dyed. 

That gid was not uncommon in the seventeenth century is clear 
from the fact that Rolfinck (1656a), writing of vertigo, refers to it 
as occasionally (nonnumquam) caused b}^ sacs of water on the brain 
m sheep. Wepfer (165Sa) notes it as a serious and common disease 
of cattle in Switzerland. In the account of Scultetus (1674a) it 
appears that a sheep dealer recognizes the disease as one common 
enough in Germany at that time to have a colloquial name, 
"Wirbling." 

The next reference to gid is by Wepfer (1681a) and is identical 
with the one already given, being in a later edition of the original 
work of 1658. 

Ktichenmeister (1880a) refers to an article by Brunner (1694a'), 
not available to me, and quotes from it a statement to the effect that 
Brunner had dissected the head of a giddy calf, "vituli vertiginosi," 
and in the cerebral substance had found three hydatids the size of 
pigeon eggs and full of limpid fluid. Kiichenmeister takes this to 
refer to Coenurus cerehralis, which it obviously does. 

a The original Latin text reads "in tonstrino Nicolai Reutte." The translator has 
translated not only the text but also the proper names, rendering the German name 
Reutte by its English equivalent, Kite. 

^This last statement should read " towards the right," the Latin word here being 
"dextram." 

51674°— Bull. 125, pt. 1—10 2 



10 THE GID PAEASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

The next reference is in Wepfer (1724a). The first two parts of 
this article consist of the two parts making up the edition of 1658. 
With these is incorporated a third part. The same references to gid 
occur in the parts already published and referred to above. In the 
new part is a new reference to hydatids in the brain of cattle as 
being commonly believed to be the cause of the vertigo accompanying 
them. He has seen the peasants perforate the skull and extract 
these in operations and has also seen the hydatids demonstrated 
post-mortem. 

Hoffberg (1759a), in a dissertation on Oervus tarandus, first 
presented in 1754, writes under the heading of diseases of this 
animal, of a vertigo or "Ringsjuka" causing the reindeer to turn in 
circles. Braun (1894a) takes this as a reference to Ccenurus cere- 
hralis, which is a i)erfectly reasonable assumption. The presence 
of the parasite in the reindeer, however, is unsupported by post- 
mortem evidence in this reference, and, so far as I am aware, such 
evidence is lacking in any subsequent writings. The occurrence of 
the gid parasite in the reindeer must therefore be considered doubt- 
ful. It seems the more doubtful in that Brehm (1877cv) states that 
reindeer are attacked by the larva of a gadfly, specified by Moniez 
(1880a) as CepJienomya trompe, which penetrates from the nasal 
cavity to the brain, causing a fatal "Drehkrankheit" or gid, and 
it may have been this disease, apparently a common one, which 
Hoffberg saw. 

Kiichenmeister (1880a) quotes from a treatise on diseases of 
sheep by Guetebruck (1766ci'), already noted as not available. In 
this treatise it is stated that the disease attacks lambs and yearlings, 
but not old sheep; that some are born with it; that a water bladder 
forms on the brain and may penetrate the skull; that when the 
disease has not gone too far the flesh may be used and the head and 
feet thrown away [very bad advice], but if the disease has gone too 
far the entire carcass should be done away with. As a method of 
treatment he gives venesection on the temple and nose. 

Stier (1776a) has an article on gid, of which only the review was 
seen by me, the original (Stier, 1775a) not being available. The 
article takes up a long list of supposed causes of gid and rejects 
them, the water bladder in the head being held guilty of causing the 
trouble. Stier also draws a careful distinction between actual gid 
due to C. cerehralis and simulated gid due to the presence of (Estrus 
larva* in the nostrils, the latter presenting the symptoms most com- 
monly mistaken for gid. 

According to footnotes in Bloch (1780a), Hastfer (1776a') and 
Ranstler (1776(t) have published references to gid, but these are not 
available. Bloch states that they attributed gid to the bladder on 



HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 11 

the brain, and that Ranstler was the first to notice the small bodies 
on the bladder and surmised that worms arose from them. 

Accordino; to Braun (1894a) and others, the cestode nature of the 
water bladder found in the brain of giddy sheep was first pointed 
out by Leske (1780a) and by Goeze (1780a), independently. These 
references are not available to me. Braun notes that Goeze recog- 
nized the cestode heads and considered them as the embryos of the 
bladderworms which are found in the omentum and liver of sheep 
and swine. He also notes that Leske found Tsenia multiceps 
( = Ccenurus cerebralis) , recognizing the characteristic hooks and 
suckers. Kiichenmeister (1880a) quotes part of Leske's article 
showing that Leske made a very careful study of the morphology 
and pathology of the parasite. He noted the heads invaginate 
and evaginate through the bladder wall. From the presence of so 
many of these heads, he observes that we may consider the animal 
as many tapeworms attached to a common bladder, or as one tape- 
worm with many heads. Hence it would be appropriate to call it 
the many-headed tapeworm, so he names it Taenia multice'ps. 

This last is important, as it establishes the fact that the correct 
specific name of the gid parasite is multice'ps. The preceding note 
from Braun (1894a) confirms the correctness of Kiichenmeister's 
(1880a) quotation, and in addition Mr. Sherborn has very kindly 
verified the reference in the library of the British Museum. It 
appears from evidence to be considered later that Leske's work 
antedates that of Goeze in the same year. Were it otherwise, Goeze's 
article need not be considered, as, according to Braun's synopsis, 
he regarded the heads of the parasite as the embryos of the bladder- 
worms found in the omentum of sheep and swine, and hence pre- 
sumably proposed no new name for the brain parasite, as there 
would be no reason for it under the circumstances or a proper appli- 
cation for the name had he done so. 

In a discussion of the synonymy of this parasite, Stiles and Steven- 
son (1905a) accept as the specific name the one proposed by Bloch 
(1780a). Bloch makes the genus Vermis vesicularis for the bladder- 
worms, and divides these into three species, of which Vermis vesicu- 
laris sociaUs is the brain bladderworm of sheep. But though this 
article of Bloch's bears the same date as those of Leske and Goeze, 
viz, 1780, Leske's article is nevertheless older, and the name pro- 
posed by him is therefore entitled to priority. This is evident from 
Bloch's own article, which shows that Bloch had read Leske's article 
of, the same year. Bloch states that Ranstler first noticed the small 
bodies on the bladder walls and surmised that worms arose from 
them, but that Leske and Goeze observed that these bodies were 
actually bladderworms. He states that Leske has described them 



12 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

very completel}'^ and figured one accurately. Bloch very signifi- 
cantly adds that Leske numbered the parasites among the tape- 
worms, "Bandwiirmer," where, according to Bloch, they can not 
properly be reckoned, for reasons already given by him. 

Tt is evident from the last statement that Bloch had not overlooked 
Leske's Tsenia multiceps and that he believed he was correcting an 
error by proposing the name Vermis vesicularis socialis. However, 
subsequent work on cestode life history has shown the invalidity 
of all classifications which place vesicular worms in a group apart 
from the strobila forms and has justified Leske's judgment in uniting 
them. 

Unfortunately for Leske's name, Rudolphi (1810a) did not list it 
as a synonym of Cmnurus cerehralis, although he listed Leske's 
article in his bibliography. For this reason Leske's name has been 
very generally overlooked, as research in nomenclature has com- 
monly gone back through Rudolphi to the names quoted by him. 
Stiles and Stevenson (1905a) do not give Leske's name, Txnia mul- 
ticeps, in their table of synonymy, and in selecting the oldest name 
available to them have overlooked the rather obscure references 
to Leske's unavailable article. On calling Doctor Stiles's attention 
to the omission he pointed out to me that Sherborn (1902a) refers 
to Leske (1780a) with the comment "No n. spp." I wrote Mr. 
Sherborn, asking him to verify this reference, which he very kindly 
did. In a personal communication he quotes substantially the 
part quoted by Ktichenmeister (1880a), and states that he over- 
looked the name in his former reading. Mr. Sherborn was also good 
enough to supply copies of Leske's illustrations. These show very 
close observation. 

Following the independent discoveries by Goeze and Leske of the 
cestode nature of the water bladder from the brain of giddy sheep, 
there arose some controversy as to which of them was entitled to 
priority. According to Braun (1894a), Boerner (1780a) published 
an article discussing this point and holding Goeze as the discoverer. 
Subsequently, Goeze (1782a) repudiated Boerner's article, deploring 
the misunderstanding between himself and Leske. He states that 
he has explained the situation in a previous publication, the date of 
which is not given and which is unavailable to me. Leske's priority 
is C(mceded by Rudolphi (1808a) and by Davaine (1860a). The 
matter of priority here is apparently not concerned in the nomen- 
clature, and what honor lies in priority of discovery belongs to 
Leske, so far as the available evidence shows. 

Goeze (1782a) divides his genus ^^ Taenia, Bandwurm," into two 
main classes as he calls them — Tsenia visceralis, the visceral tape- 
worms, and Tsenia intestinalis, the intestinal tapeworms. Under 
the former he lists, among other species, ' ' Taenia vesicularis cerebrina" 



HISTOEICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 13 

from the brain of giddy sheep, Multice/ps, the many-headed, with 
many heads and bodies in a common bladder. And later on he 
states that from the numerous heads one may call the parasite 
"Vielkopf (Multiceps).'' 

From the above, Stiles and Stevenson (1905a) have taken the 
generic name Multiceps. The generic name used by Bloch (1780a) 
is evidently unavailable, being composed of two words and there- 
fore contrary to Article 8 of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature, as given by Stiles (1905y): "A generic name must 
consist of a single word, simple or compound." 

Rudolphi (1809a) rejected Bloch's Vermis vesicularis as incon- 
gruous and unsystematic. Sherborn (1902a) is in error in listing 
Vermis Bloch 1782 as a generic name. The combination Vermis 
vesicularis is always used, whether with or without various specific 
names attached. 

As heretofore shown (p. 11), the earliest specific name of the 
parasite is that of Leske (1780a) as given in the name Tsenia multi- 
ceps. If the parasite in question is to be removed from the genus 
Tsenia, then the new combination must use the earliest available 
generic or subgeneric name, and since Goeze's (1782a) use of the 
scientific name Multiceps is evidently generic or subgeneric in intent, 
being clearly used to distinguish the many-headed gid parasite 
from the single-headed cysticercus forms, it is necessary to use it in 
the new name. 

The tendency for some time, and certainly a desirable tendency, 
has been to break up the large and heterogeneous group of animals 
formerly listed in the genus Tsenia, and to restrict the use of this 
name. The present situation has already been stated by Stiles 
(1905y) as follows: 

Most authors recognize that Taenia is to be divided into the subgenera Tsenia, Multi- 
ceps (i. e. Ccenurus), and Echinococcus. Some authors, however, incline to recognize 
these subgenera as of full generic rank. 

It seems advisable to restrict the generic name Tsenia to those 
forms which have a cysticercus stage in the life history. These 
alone make up a large group with a fairly close similarity in the 
adult and larval stages. To retain in this already large genus forms 
having a ccenurus or echinococcus larva seems unnecessary and 
undesirable. Long ago Leuckart (1886d) wrote: 

The Cosnwus * * * is related to the Cysticercus as a compound to a simple 
animal — a sufficient reason for systematic zoologists to separate them. 

Generic rank is accorded to particular groups of species which 
in the course of evolution have attained distinctive characteristics, 
and I see no reason for withholding sucli rank from forms in which 
these distinctive characteristics occur in the larva instead of the 
adult. This point is of especial importance in a case of this sort 



14 THE GID PAEASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

where the animal is found in the Larval stage in the great majority 
of cases, the adult being seldom seen or recognized. This view is 
in accord with that of Stiles and Stevenson (1905a), from whom the 
following is quoted: 

Opinions may differ as to whether this group [Multiceps] should be given generic 
or subgeneric rank. Personally we see no serious argument against recognizing a 
distinct genus on basis of the "larval" stage. 

Adopting, then, the genus Multiceps Goeze, 1782a, and the species 
multiceps Leske, 1780a, as the oldest available names, the correct 
technical name of the gid parasite is Multiceps multiceps (Leske, 
1780a), Hall, 1910/9. 

From 1782 to 1800, the latter date marking the beginning of 
Braun's (1894a) third period in helminthology, numerous observa- 
tions were made on gid, most of them merely confirming the previous 
work of Leske, Goeze, and Bloch, or adding minor points of more or 
less importance and interest. By 1800 the gid disease had been 
observed certainly for over a centurv and a half and very likely for 
twenty-two centuries, its parasite had been named, described, and 
figured, and had a fairly large number of synonyms in addition to its 
correct name, the symptoms and pathology of the disease had been 
given, together with the symptoms of diseases simulating gid, and 
methods of operation had been used which only lacked aseptic pre- 
cautions to make them equivalent to good modern methods, and 
which were as good, perhaps, as most methods now in actual use. 

There remained, then, the work of finding out the life history and 
basing on that a rational prophylaxis. As a matter of fact the dis- 
covery of this life history by Kiichenmeister and Von Siebold marks 
the beginning of the fourth and last period in helminthology. The 
contributions of the third period to the subject of gid are largely 
WTong and unnecessary theories of causation as well as unsatisfac- 
tory methods of treatment. In addition, the large amount of litera- 
ture in this period lists the parasite from several new hosts, often 
erroneously, and adds considerably to the synonyms by which it 
is known. During this period new records of the disease show a 
widening geographical distribution, and unsatisfactory and unsub- 
stantiated statements of its presence in the United States begin to 
appear as early as 1809. The essential contributions in the literature 
of this period have been covered in tables and discussions to be given 
later, and the important events marking the modern period of helmin- 
thology may next be considered. 

Von Siebold (1844a) proposed as an explanation of the true nature 
of bladderworms that they were cestode embryos which in attaining 
a new host had gone astray, ending as encysted, incompletely devel- 
oped forms. Thus Cysticercus fasciolaris of the mouse was held to 
be such an incomplete sexless modification of Tsenia crassicollis of the 



HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 15 

cat. He ventured to predict that in time the various tapeworms 
would be identified in their relation to certain cysticercus, coenurus, 
and echinococcus forms. 

Dujardin (1845a) advanced a similar theory, and this view or 
modifications of it became popular m scientific circles durmg the 
five or six years following Von Siebold's publication. It required 
the experimental work of Von Siebold and Kiichenmeister in 1851 
and 1852 to complete this half truth. In the meantime the advo- 
cates of spontaneous generation lost ground to those who urged that 
the bladderworms were altered, degenerate cestodes or were incom- 
pletely developed embryonal forms. 

A prominent champion of the last theory, Kiichenmeister (1851e), 
finally published a note stating that he had produced Tsenia cras- 
sicipes [= T. crassiceps] of the fox by feeding Cysticercus pisiformis. 
A little later (Kiichenmeister, 1851d) he corrected this statement, 
changing his identification of the adult worm to T. serrata. This 
marks the beginning of the modern use of the now general experi- 
mental feeding methods of determining life histories. 

It remained for Von Siebold (1852a), the supporter of the theory 
of hydropic degeneration of bladderworms, to furnish additional 
proof that his theory was wrong, for this same year he produced the 
adult cestode from the gid bladderworm. 

The following year Kiichenmeister (1853e) succeeded in experi- 
mentally demonstrating, for the first time, the entire life history of 
a cestode. He fed Coenurus cerehralis to a dog and produced a tape- 
worm which he called Txnia ccenurus. He then fed the gravid pro- 
glottids of this tapew^orm to a sheep, and produced in it the early 
stages of the ccenurus in the brain. 

From this experiment Kiichenmeister concludes that sheep are 
infected in pasture by dogs dropping proglottids. Other animals, 
he thinks, may also harbor the tapeworm, and he claims this would 
certainly be true of wolves in Hungary and Poland. This statement 
is evidently mere assertion, as it is not verified by the record of such 
a finding either at the time or subsequently. At this date no de- 
scription of T. ccenurus had been published and its anatomy had not 
been studied. Indeed, the following year Von Siebold (1854b) 
states that he finds the adult of Coenurus cerehralis to be Txnia 
serrata. While the occurrence of T. ccenurus in the wolf is a proba- 
bility, it is nothmg more, so far as all available records show. 

On the evidence at hand Kiichenmeister formulated a set of rules 
for the prophylaxis of gid which is practically complete. It is as 
follows : 

1. Feed dry food the year round and do not pasture. 

2. Once or twice a year, purge the sheep and dogs in some inclosed 
place to get rid of tapeworms, and burn the feces. 



16 THE OID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

3. Do not, as is usually done, throw the heads of giddy sheep to the 
dogs, or, as Klichennieister after investigation finds to be done, 
throw the brain to the dogs before cooking the heads. Where there 
are wolves one must also bury or burn the intestines of those that are 
killed, and not throw them away to infect the fields. 

Such a program is not altogether practicable or necessary, but 
it only needs trifling amendment to bring it down to date. Had it 
been adhered to only as regards keeping dogs free from tapeworms 
and heads of giddy sheep away from carnivora for the last half cen- 
tury, gid would probably have been a rare disease by this, for it is 
really one of the most readily preventable of diseases. 

The next year Kiichenmeister's work was confirmed by Von 
Beneden (1854cv and 1854/?), Eschricht (1854CV), Gurlt — according to 
Kiichenmeister (1854n') — Haubner (1854c and 1854d), Leuckart 
(1854c), and Roll (1854^'), all of whom produced gid in sheep by 
feeding proglottids of Tsenia ccenurus sent them by Ktichenmeister. 

As a result of these experiments and others performed soon after, 
the important phases of the life history of the gid tapeworm were 
determined. It was found that the disease began with an invasion 
period during which the embryos were migrating through the body. 
Then followed an interval of apparent recovery, during which the 
growth of the bladdery vesicle was going on, to the point where the 
heads became developed and exsertile. Here the third and final 
stage of gid occurred, the characteristic symptoms, corresponding to 
particular locations of the parasite, becoming more aggravated with 
the increase in growth and number of heads until death occurred. 

Subsequent work has added to our knowledge of the morphology 
of the gid parasite, of the symptoms, pathology, and simulation of 
the disease, and of the need of avoiding bacterial infection in opera- 
tion. It has added numerous synonyms to the nomenclature, and 
recorded, correctly or incorrectly, new hosts and new areas of infec- 
tion, among the latter the United States. No essential points have 
been added to our knowledge of the life history of the parasite or 
the prophylaxis of the disease. 

GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 

The history of gid in the United States is, to a remarkable extent, 
a matter of conjecture. So far as I have been able to discover, the 
first claim of its occurrence here was made a century ago by Liv- 
ingston (1809ci'). His claim is based on very unsatisfactory evidence. 
The following is a rather full quotation of the case : 

The staggers or dizziness, which is also known by various other names, has occurred 
in three instances in my flock, and always attacked lambs under one year. * * * 
They were taken very suddenly * * * by a species of convulsion, in which the 
neck was twisted to one side; they lost the use of their legs; when raised they would 



GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 17 

attempt to follow the flock, but turned round and fell; in a few days they were inca- 
pable even of standing, of moving their heads or any of their limbs. As they were 
very valuable sheep, I paid particular attention to them; grass and grain were given 
them, which they would readily eat, though they could not move any part but their 
jaws. In this state they lay a week without motion, except of their eyes and mouth. 
* * * In about ten days they could stand without support, but fell when they 
attempted to walk. * * * At intervals they would get better * * * but they 
were always found laying in some part of the field as if they were dead. * * * In 
the course of about six weeks they so far recovered as to be able to join the flock; one 
of them * * * received a blow * * * that killed him; the other two recov- 
ered, but very slowly; and even at the end of eight months they bore evident marks 
of their complaint. This disorder is found, upon dissection, to be owing to a bag 
containing water within the skull. * * * It may * * * be justly considered 
as incurable by the doctor, but not, as I have shown, by the nurse. * * * But a 
sheep must be extremely valuable to pay for three months' constant attention. 

It seems unlikely that the above cases were gid. Their occurrence 
in lambs fits in with the theory of gid, and the general symptoms, 
though not typical, might have been gid. On the other hand, the 
alternation between periods of normal activity and entire collapse 
does not look like gid, and the gradual betterment over a period of 
eight months runs counter to the clinical history of the disease. 
Moreover, leaving out the case of the lamb that was killed while 
recovering, the per cent of recoveries was 100. Some writers have 
claimed a spontaneous recovery in 2 per cent of all cases, but the 
writer knows of no evidence showing that any cases ever recover 
when the formation of the bladder is once under way, and a degen- 
eration of the parasite in its earher stages, indicated by the brain 
concretions according to Spinola (1858b), would not give a long period 
of slow recovery. Moreover, the three scattering cases given would 
indicate a sporadic infection, not to be expected in the case of gid. 
Doctor Mohler of tliis Bureau suggests a meningitis as the particular 
disease simulating gid in this instance, a theory which seems to fit 
the case very well. The lack of post-mortem evidence is unfortu- 
nate, as even typical cases of gid may be simulated by other things. 

Cole (1847a:), in a book published in Boston, discussing "Sturdy, 
or Water in the Head," states: 

A writer on this subject says that he knew a shepherd in Europe that saved nearly 
all on which he operated in this manner [by trocar], while he himself lost nearly all 
on which he operated. 

This sentence suggests that the writer referred to had operated 
outside of Europe and most Ukely in the United States, but this is, 
of course, mere speculation. 

Later, a competent scientist, Leidy (1856a and 1856b) records 
Coenurus cerehralis in a list of parasites "observed by the author," but 
does not state whether it was collected in the United States. 

McClure (1870^'), writing from the United States, says that he has 
known as many as five coenuri to occur in the brain of sheep. He 
51674°— Bull. 125, pt 1—10 3 



18 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

does not specify that this observation was made in the United States, 
however, or that the disease occurs here. 

Verrill (1870d), writing of gidj says: "In this country [United 
States] the disease is far more common than most persons suppose." 
Unfortunately, he cites no Hterature and no cases in support of 
this statement, and a request for further information has not been 
answered. 

Tellor (1879a) says: "Hydatid in the brain, or turnsick, although 
reported from New York and other States, is a curiosity rather than 
a scourge." He does not claim to have seen the disease. 
. Crutchfield (ISSOo'), of Hamilton County, Tenn., says: 

I have lost a few sheep by "staggers," "turnsick," etc., properly Hydatid on the 
brain, by allowing the sheep to range upon low, wet, spongy lands. By removing 
them at once the disease ceased. 

The evidence here is not sufficient to enable one to pass judgment 
on the case. There is no statement of symptoms or autopsy find- 
ings, and the cessation of the disease on removing the sheep from 
low, wet ground might or might not have followed in the case of gid. 
Hence this case must remain uncertain. 

Killebrew (1880<:tr), writing from the same State, Tennessee, in the 
same year does not claim to have seen the disease, but Stewart 
(1880a), writing from New York, says of Ccenurus cerehralis: "The 
presence of this parasite has been discovered * * * in numerous 
sheep in this country." 

Stewart's statement is not convincing, but in connection with other 
things it shows a belief on the part of men interested in the sheep 
business that gid existed in this country. Later events indicate that 
their belief and their statements to that effect are quite as likely to 
have been based on fact as to have been unfounded. 

Wernicke (1886a) records C. cerehralis from sheep in Buenos Aires. 
He believes it imported from Europe and states that it is a source of 
worry to breeders. It seems altogether likely that if gid had been 
imported to South America from Europe by 1886, it had probably 
been imported to the United States from the same source even earlier. 
In this connection, Powers (1887«') writes from New York the fol- 
lowing year concerning gid : 

I have never seen a case of this, knowing it to be such, nor have I seen an American 
shepherd who has met with it. It was probably imported from England, and it seems 
to prevail chiefly in the Eastern States. * * * i made many autopsies of sheep 
* ■* * for the bladder or cyst of this parasite, but I never found one. When the 
case is long drawn out, the bladder or tumour on the brain by constant pressure on the 
skull, absorbs it to such a degree that a finger pressed on the spot discovers a soft spot 
in the plate of the bone, or the latter even bulges out in a protuberance. * * * 
Twice I have seen this phenomenon in my own flocks and in rude fashion lanced 
them, thereby saving the sheep. 



GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 19 

There is an evident contradiction between the statement that the 
writer has never seen gid and that he lias operated on his sheep for it. 

How easy it would be to import a case of gid may be surmised 
from Rabe's (lS89a) case in a gazelle imported from South Africa 
fourteen days before death. There is also the possibility of import- 
ing the adult worm in some of the numerous dogs which have been 
imported to this country. Professor Law, in a personal communica- 
tion, writes under date of July 2, 1909: 

Owing to its rapid development in the lamb it is less likely to be imported in the 
condition of larva, but among the many imported dogs the Tsenia must have been 
often imported. 

All things considered, the likelihood of importing the disease via 
the dog is perhaps as great as that of importing it in the sheep, but 
I would not consider the latter less likely. Rabe's case and others 
to be considered later show this. Moreover, a possible four to six 
months is not a very rapid development of disease in these days of 
rapid transit. An outbreak of gid attributed by Doctor Law and by 
Taylor and Boynton (1910a) to imported dogs is discussed later in 
this paper. The writer has collected evidence in Montana indicating 
that the gid parasite has been imported in dogs in some instances 
and the disease spread by the sale or gift of these dogs and their 
offspring. 

Nearly twenty years ago, Curtice (1890c) writes of larval cestodes 
in sheep : ' ' Tsenia marginata is more common in the United States, 
and T. coenurus next." He hazards the guess that in the West 
wolves, coyotes, and foxes may harbor the parasite. In a personal 
communication Doctor Curtice writes of the above under date of 
July 26, 1909: "I have never seen T. ccenurus. I must have made 
statement on information by reading." 

In another article Curtice (1892g) has the following: 

The tapeworms identified as T. coenurus were found but once in Colorado. The 
species may have been one arising from rabbit cysticerci and wrongly identified. 
The specimens were taken from a sheep dog. They are now in the bureau collection. 

I have examined these specimens (Nos. 2839 and 2840), and while 
they are not in good condition it is still possible to determine the 
essential things. They are not T. ccenurus, so far as the material 
furnishes data on the subject. To mention two evident differences, 
the eggs are decidedly oval, and the handle of the large hook is of 
an entirely different shape. 

About the year 1895 the subject of gid in the United States begins 
to receive notice in sheepmen's periodicals. Thus we find gid diag- 
nosed by the veterinary editor of one paper (Vet. Ed. Amer, Sheep 
Breeder, 1895fi') in a case where correspondents from an unspecified 
locality give a history of staggering to the right in an imported 



20 THE GID PAEASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

Slu-opshire ewe. The animal became unable to rise and was killed. 
On post-mortem examination a third of a teacupful of water ran out 
of the head. We are obliged to concur in the diagnosis given and 
consider that the disease was very likely imported with the sheep. 

Later in the same year the same diagnosis is given by this editor 
(Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder, 1895/3) in a second case from an 
unspecified locality, with the characteristic symptoms of giddiness 
or turning, followed by death. Another case is diagnosed as gid on 
the same symptoms two years later (Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder, 
1897^). 

Sommer (1896c) did not find T. coenurus in an examination of fifty 
dogs at Washington, D. C. 

The adult tapeworm, T. ccEuurus, was reported from Nebraska by 
Ward (1896b), but Stiles (1898a) on an examination of the head of 
the specimen pronounced it T. serialis. Doctor Stiles tells me that 
he based tliis identification on the bifid guard of the small hook, an 
inadequate diagnostic character, as the corresponding guard of T. 
coenurus is also bifid. (See Reinitz, 1885a, and Ransom, 1905d.) On 
the other hand, the larva and adult of T. serialis are known to occur 
in Nebraska, which makes it likely that Stiles was correct. Ward 
(1897b) agrees with Stiles that it was T. serialis. 

Knowles (1897<:v) writes as follows: 

As numbers of inquiries come to this office relative to gid, or staggers, or so-called 
tumsick in sheep, I * * * append a well-written description, etc., of this dis- 
ease by Doctor Curtis. [This should be Curtice.] 

Doctor Knowles tells the writer that he saw his first cases of gid 
in Montana during the year that the above was written, 1897. 

Stiles (1898a), writing from this laboratory, says of Cosnurus cere- 
hralis: 

Fortunately it does not seem to be prevalent in this country. * * * It has been 
impossible for the writer to find any possible evidence of the existence of the gid 
bladderworm in this country, yet in view of the importations from Europe of sheep 
and dogs it is difficult to believe that we are entirely free from this parasite. 

In a footnote he says: 

One extremely doubtful case has been reported to us from Minnesota of its occur- 
rence under the skin of a horse. This latter case has not been examined by the 
bureau, but I would suggest that Txnia serialis is common in America, and consider- 
ing the tissue in which this parasite was found, it is not at all improbable that the 
Minnesota case was one of Coenurus serialis ( Taenia serialis) rather than C. cerebralis. 

Railliet's (1893a) earlier note of this case is based on correspond- 
ence. 

As this case stands we may choose between considering it as the 
first and only case of O. serialis in the horse and in its normal loca- 
tion, or regarding it as one of several cases of C. cerebralis in the 
horse, occurring in a location in which it has been reported twice 



GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 21 

from the sheep. The case is too doubtful to pass judgment on, and 
the report may have been an error in the first place. 

Wallace (1900a) diagnoses a case for a correspondent from Iowa 
as gid in sheep. The symptoms are suspicious, but not clearly gid. 

Shaw (1901a), writing of the sheep industry of Minnesota, says 
that gid "has not been markedly prevalent in Minnesota." In a 
personal communication dated July 27, 1909, Professor Shaw writes: 

I have seen cases which I supposed to be gid in sheep, but I have never seen the 
parasite itself * * *, Dr. H. M. Reynolds, veterinarian of our [Minnesota] station 
* * * tells me that his experience is similar to mine. He has not yet seen the 
parasite. 

The veterinary ecHtor formerly referred to (Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep 
Breeder, 1901;- and 1901^) diagnoses a case as gid in reply to two 
correspondents from Montana who describe the symptoms and post- 
mortem findings of their sheep. The diagnosis is unmistakably cor- 
rect. He states (1901o) that gid is "fortunately not very common 
except in the native sheep of the plains." Strictly speaking, the only 
native sheep in America are the Bighorn sheep, Ovis montana, of the 
mountains, never reported as subjects of gid. The reference is per- 
haps to native-bred sheep. The diseased sheep in this case came 
from Colorado, and the editor states : 

It [C. cerebralis] is especially common in Colorado, where 70 per cent of sheep 
examined by Doctor Curtice were infested by it. It is unquestionably quite as com- 
mon in all the western country from Mexico as far north as the animals mentioned 
[foxes, wolves, and coyotes] exist. 

It has already been noted that Doctor Curtice says that he has 
never seen T. cmnurus. 

Finally the editor states that he has recently operated on seven 
shee]) for gid. This is the first record of what appears to be a clear 
case of the finding of the parasite in the United States. On attempt- 
ing to secure further information about these cases it was learned that 
the veterinary editor in question was deceased. 

In another sheep-breeders' periodical (Vet. Ed. Amer. Shepherd's 
Buhetin, 1902<ar) a case from Illinois is diagnosed as probably gid. The 
symptoms are quite characteristic — slobbering, refusal to eat, turning 
alwa3^s to left, head held down to left, death the fourth day. The 
case was probably gid. The editor states that he has seen gid in 
England, but not in the United States, though he claims that there is 
reason to suppose that it occurs in imported sheep. 

Law (1903a) says of the adult tapeworm from C(Bnurus cerebralis: 
"The writer raised forty-two, averaging 1 foot, in six weeks in a 
sucking puppy." Doctor Law writes in a letter of July 2, 1909, 
already noted, that this was done in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1864 
or 1865, and that he has not seen gid in America. 



22 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

Cases from Nevada, showing the symptoms and post-mortem evi- 
dence of gid, are so diagnosed by the veterinary editor of the American 
Sheep Breeder (IQOSo-). Some cases from Kansas and Iowa, with 
symptoms of gid, but no post-mortem findings, are also diagnosed 
as gid. (Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder, 1903^ and 1903^.) 

The same year, the veterinary editor of the American Shepherd's 
Bulletin (1903a') states that the disease is prevalent in Utah and 
common in other sections. He diagnoses gid in two imported rams in 
Michigan (Vet. Ed. Amer. Shepherd's Bulletin, 1903/?)— the diagnosis 
seems correct from the characteristic symptom complex — and gives 
the report of an operation (Vet. Ed. Amer. Shepherd's Bulletin, 
1903;-) from an unspecified locality where some one found a "bag of 
water" on the sheep's brain. 

The next year. Stiles (1904s) wrote of Canurus cerehralis: "1 have 
never seen any specimen of this parasite collected in the United 
States." 

The same year, an outbreak of gid occurred in Montana, a discus- 
sion of this outbreak being given the following year by Ransom 
(1905d). In that article Ransom states: 

Until very recently, so far as it has been possible to determine, gid has been entirely 
unknown in this country. * * * It seems hardly probable, in view of our present 
knowledge, that the disease has been altogether absent * * * The disease is now 
present in the United States, cases having developed recently which, as the attend- 
ant circumstances show, must have resulted from infection in this country. 

The sheep in question died at Bozeman, Mont. A comparison of 
the coenuri obtained showed a complete agreement with the descrip- 
tion of the European Coenurus cerehralis. Ransom's article pointed 
out the danger from this disease and the means of combating it. 

In addition to Ransom's cases of gid from Montana, the veterinary 
editor of the American Sheep Breeder ( 1905 a-^) answers a number of 
letters from which it appears that gid was present the same year in 
Missouri, Kansas, Ohio, Colorado, Indian Territory, and other locali- 
ties not specified. The symptoms were quite characteristic in the 
Missouri cases and were confirmed by post-mortem in the cases from 
Ohio and the Indian Territory. These cases are, in my opinion, 
undoubtedly gid, and the Kansas and Colorado cases are possibly gid. 

Clarke (1907«') states that he has met many cases of gid in sheep 
at the slaughterhouses, but in a personal communication of August 
2, 1909, he writes that this was in England. 

Wing (1907(^), after many years experience with sheep, states that 
he is not sure that he has ever seen an instance of gid. 

Kaupp (1908iif and lOlOor) has overlooked the work of Ransom 
(1905d), as well as some other articles we have cited, and states that 
gid is not reported in the United States. 



GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 23 

Luckey (1908<-v), writing from Missouri, states: "Although not 
very common in this State, what is known as sturdy or gid in sheep 
causes some loss." 

Regarding this, Doctor Luckey writes, under date of July 21, 1909, 
that he has not kept an accurate record of outbreaks, but remembers 
a report from Willow Springs, Howell County, describing perfectly 
the symptoms of gid in goats. This is the only case known to me 
where gid has been reported from the goat in the United States, and 
it is included in a subsequent list as a probable case. 

The veterinary editor of the American Sheep Breeder (1908/3) diag- 
noses as gid a very doubtful case in an Iowa sheep, and elsewhere 
(Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder, igOScr) states that the disease is 
very prevalent at the time in some parts of the United States. 

The writer (Hall, 1909(nr and 1910n') has twice reported gid from 
the United States, once with a record of cases. 

The official files of this Bureau furnish additional data, mostly 
obtained through inquiries by Dr. B. H. Ransom, chief of the Zoolog- 
ical Division of the Bureau. Dr. S. W. McClure, -Bureau veterinary 
inspector, Pendleton, Oreg., in addition to furnishing this division 
with specimens of giddy sheep, further informs us under date of Sep- 
tember 3, 1906, that a highly reliable sheep man of Chouteau, Mont., 
claims to have had gid among his yearlings "for many years," hav- 
ing 40 to 60 affected every year out of 2,000. Many other Montana 
sheepmen, according to Doctor McClure in a letter of October 15, 
1906, claim to have the disease in their flocks. One claims to have 
15 to 20 cases some years, another had over 200 cases among 10,000 
lambs in 1905, another had 30 cases among 4,000 lambs in 1898, an- 
other had 15 cases among 1,500 bucks in 1906, and others had a few 
cases each year. Doctor McClure states that he has met sheepmen 
who tell him that when they recognize an animal as affected with 
gid they forward it to the feeding point for market if they have a 
shipment about that time. 

Dr. R. H. Treacy of this Bureau reports under date of June 5, 1907, 
a list of 11 flocks in Montana where gid, shown by the presence of 
cysts in the brain, was reported by Doctors Stauffer, Nutting, and 
Cary. According to Doctor Treacy, the sheepmen have been class- 
ing the trouble as loco, poison weed, water on the brain, grubs in the 
head, etc., and have paid no attention to destroying the dead ani- 
mals. This fact, together with the statement of Doctor Stauffer in 
his letter of February 25, 1908, to Doctor Treacy, that certain sheep- 
men would not subject their dogs to vermifuge treatment because 
they were using the dogs, shows a condition of affairs which must 
make for the spread of gid in Montana. Two other factors in the 



24 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

spread of gid are mentioned by Doctor Gary in a letter to Doctor 
Treacy under date of April 9, 1908. One is the habit of some sheep- 
men picking up a dog wherever they can find one. The other is the 
"floater" band, or wandering band of sheep. In the latter connec- 
tion he states: 

In the spring of 1907 a giddy band of "floaters " from Flatwillow country trailed along 
the northern boundary of the Crow Reservation, several of the lambs dying as they 
passed through the Blue Creek country 9 miles south of Billings, and I believe it was 
through this band that the Arthur Milne band in Blue Creek became affected this 
spring. ■* * * The Milne lambs were raised in the Blue Creek country, and gid 
has never been known there till this spring. 

A discussion of the existing neglect of prophylactic measures 
against gid in the western part of the United States has been given 
by the writer in a bureau article. (See Hall, 1910«'.) 

Specimens of Ccenurus cerehralis from the brains of giddy sheep 
were collected by Professor Cooley January 5, 1904, Doctor McClure 
in May, 1906, Doctor Gary April 20, 1907, Doctor Davison December 
21, 1907, Doctor Stauffer in January, 1908, and Doctor Peck July 
11, 1908. 

Doctor Stauffer also furnished a map of Ghouteau Gounty, Mont., 
showing the distribution of gid in that county. Doctor Treacy has 
prepared a map of the vState of Montana showing the distribution of 
gid in that State during the spring of 1908. From these maps, from 
correspondence, and from information obtained during a personal 
investigation of gid in Montana during the spring of 1910, the map 
given here as figure 1 has been compiled. The infected areas shown 
by Doctor Treacy are indicated by solid blocks. Other infected areas 
where gid has occurred at some time during the period from 1898 to 
1910, inclusive, are indicated by hollow blocks. The area where the 
continued recurrence of gid shows that the range is infected is indi- 
cated b}^- shading. This area is 400 miles long and in places is 200 
miles wide. During the personal investigation referred to above, 
evidence was obtained showing that cases of gid occurring outside of 
the infected area indicated on the map had probably been imported 
from the infected area. It will be seen from the map that gid has 
occurred in Teton, Ghouteau, Valley, Gascade, Fergus, Gallatin, and 
Yellowstone counties. The first four and probably northern Dawson 
are infected ranges. 

Montana's 5,747,000 sheep, representing, according to the Bureau 
of Statistics " of the United States Department of Agriculture, a 
value of $24,137,000 on January 1, 1910, are threatened by the pres- 
ence of a disease which has become enzootic over a large part of the 

o Crop Reporter, IT. S. Department of Agriculture, vol. 12, no. 2, February, 1910. 



GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 



25 






o 

/ 
i— 
\ 

/ 
) 





x^'T \ , „ 

_ L ' 



51674°— Bull. 125, pt. 1—10 4 



26 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

State, and which in recent years has exacted toll in increasing amounts 
from the flocks. Such a condition necessarily exposes the flocks of 
neighboring States to the danger of infection carried from Montana 
by dogs or possibly by wild carnivora or in shipments of sheep. In 
view of the unsuccessful efforts of European countries to eradicate 
gid in over half a century of educated effort, and in view of the in- 
crease and spread of the disease in Montana in the last decade, it is 
to be hoped that the importance of attempting the eradication of 
this disease will soon be realized. 

The first authentic instance of gid in the eastern United States 
occurred in 1909, and the first account of it was given by Doctor Law 
in a paper read before the New York State Veterinary Medical Society 
in August, 1909. The outbreak was reported by Taylor and Boynton 
(1910a), who found it in a flock of sheep about 40 miles from Ithaca. 
They discovered the gid parasite in the brain and claim to have 
raised one specimen of the adult tapeworm in a dog by feeding a 
coenurus to it. They believed that they found the source of the 
disease in two collies imported from Scotland to the farm where 
the disease occurred. The adult parasite was apparently not sought 
for in the dogs. In a footnote they state that Dr. Charles Linch 
investigated an outbreak of disease among sheep in New York in 
the spring of 1909 and reported that it was gid, but did not report 
finding the parasite. 

Melvin (1910rr) has called attention to the fact that Taylor and 
Boynton have overlooked a number of articles when they state: 

In a careful search of the literature we have failed to find any authentic report of a 
positively identified case of the disease having appeared in the United States. 

Subsequently, Taylor and Bojmton (1910/9) have modified this 
statement, making it refer only to New York State. 

The occurrence of certain, probable, and doubtful cases of gid in 
the United States is indicated in the following: tabular statement. 



OCCUEKENCES OF GID IN THE UNITED STATES. 27 

List of occurrences of Multiceps multiceps recorded from the United States. 



Locality. 


Author. 


Date. 


Notes and comments. 


New York (?) 


Livingston . 




1809a.. 


Three cases; probably meningitis, not 

gid. 
Parasite observed; place not stated. 
Do. 


United States (7) 




1856a and b.... 

1870a 


Do 


McClure 


United States 


Verrill 


1870d.. 






Teller 


1879a.. . 


Do. 


where. 


Crutchfield. 
Stewart 




18S0o . . 


Claims to have lost sheep from gid; no 
symptoms or post-mortem records. 

States that gid occurs in United States. 

Claims to have cured, but not seen gid. 

States that gid occurs in United States. 

Adult from dog; Curtice doubts cor- 
rectness; I find it incorrect. 

Imported Shropshire; symptoms and 
post-mortem indicate gid. 

One case; characteristic symptoms. 

Adult from dog; Stiles (1898a), on ex- 
amination, makes this T. serialis. 
Accepted by Ward (1897b) from cor- 
respondence. 

One case; characteristic symptoms. 

Notes inquiries in regard to gid. Dr. 
Knowles saw cases in 1897. 


United States 




1880a 


Eastern United States. . 


Powers 


1887a 






1890c.. 




do 


1892g. . 




Veterinary 
American 
Breeder. 

do 


editor, 
Sheep 


1895a . . 


Do 


18953 


Nebraska. 


Ward... 


1896b 


United States 


Veterinary 
American 
Breeder. 


editor , 
Sheep 


1897/? 




1897a . 


Minnesota 


Stiles 


1898a 


Iowa 


Wallace 


1900a . 


tliinks this may be C. serialis; doubt- 
ful; case previously noted by Railliet 
(lS93a) from correspondence. 

One case; symptoms not characteristic. 

States that gid occurs in United States. 

Several cases; symptoms and post- 
mortem show gid unmistakably. 

States that gid occurs in United States; 
Curtice wrongly ciuoted as authority. 
Seven cases operated on by author. 
One case; characteristic symptoms. 

Several cases; symptoms and post- 
mortem show gid unmistakably, 

Several cases; characteristic symptoms. 
One ca.se; characteristic symptoms. 
States that gid occurs in United States. 


Minnesota 


Shaw 


1901a 


Montana 


Veterinary 
American 
Breeder. 

do 


editor, 
Sheep 


1901rand() 

1901r5 


United States 


do 


19015 


Illinois 


Veterinary 
American 
herd's Bu 

Veterinary 
American 
Breeder. 
do 


editor, 

S h e p - 

letin. 

editor. 

Sheep 

editor, 
Shep- 
letin. 

editor, 
Sheep 


1902a.. 


Nevada 


1903a 


Kansas 


1903/3 


Iowa 


. .do... 


1903 r 


Utah and elsewhere 


Veterinary 
American 
herd's Bui 

do 


1903a 




1903/3 


Two imported rams; characteristic 

symptoms. 
One case; "bag of water" on brain. 
Several cases in 1904; parasite found 

and studied. 
Several cases; characteristic symptoms. 

Several cases; symptoms not character- 
istic. 

Two cases; symptoms and post-mor- 
tems show gid; had lost sheep thus 
before. 

Few cases; symptoms not characteristic. 

States that gid occurs in United States; 
in answer to some letters. 

Several cases; symptoms and post- 
mortems show gid. 

States that gid occurs in United States. 
Do. 


United States 


....do 


1903r 


Montana 


Ransom 

Veterinary 
American 
Breeder. 

.... do 


190.5d 


Missouri 


1905a . ... 


Kansas 


1905^. . . . 


Ohio 


do 


1905 j- 


Colorado 


....do 


19055 


United States 


do 


1905£ 


Indian Territory 


. ..do 


1905C 


Missouri 


Luc key _ _ . 


1908a.. 


United States 


Veterinary 
American 
Breeder. 

do 


editor , 
Sheep 


1908a 


Iowa 


1908/3 


One case; symptoms not characteristic. 


Montana and Washing- 
ton, D. C. 

New York. 


Hall 


1909a . . 


Two natural and one experimental in- 
fections; first record in this country 
of adult worm produced by feeding 
larva. 

Several cases; symptoms and post- 
mortem show gid. 

This article. 


Taylor and 
Hall 


Boynton. 


1910a 


Montana 


1910/9 











28 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 



The following list of cases occurring in the United States and not 
previously recorded is compiled from correspondence as given: 

List of occurrences of Multiceps multiceps in the United States recorded here for the first time. 



Locality. 



Letter. 



Notes and dates. 



Shelby, Mont. 



Chouteau County, 
Mont. 
Do 



Do 

Sunnyside, Cascade 

County, Mont. 
Zortman, Chouteau 

County, Mont. 

Phillips, Mont 

Ohio 



Montana . 



Rothiemay, Mont. 
Chouteau, Mont... 



Flatwillow country, 

Fergus County, Mont. 
Swimming Woman 

country, Fergus 

County, Mont. 
Yellowstone County, 

Mont. 
Chinook, Mont 



Saco, Mont 

Cut Bank, Mont 

Chouteau County, 
Mont. 

Dupuyer, Mont 

Huntley, Mont 

Rothiemay, Mont 

South Dakota 



Teton County, Mont. . 
Sage Creek, Mont 



Bear Paw Mountains, 
Mont. 

Benton, Mont 

Virgelle, Mont 

Chinook, Mont 

Billings, Mont 



Swimming Woman 
country, Flatwillow 
country, Musselshell 
country, Custer Sta- 
tion, and Blue Creek 
country. 

Conrad, Mont... 



Fort Benton, Mont 

Gildford, Chouteau 

County, Mont. 
Willow Springs, Mo 

Waverly, Iowa 



Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 
July 18, 1900. 

Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 

Sept. 3, 190(i. 
Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 

Oct. 15, 1900. 

do 

do 



.do. 
.do. 



Dr. Ransom to Dr. McClure, 
Oct. 24, 1906. 

Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 

Dec. 5, 1900. 
Dr. Cary to Dr. Treacy, 

Apr. 20, 1907. 
Dr. Nutting to Dr. Treacy, 

April, 1907. 
Dr. Cary to Dr. Treacy, 

May 21, 1907. 
....do 



.do. 



Dr. McClure to Dr. Melvin, 
June 5, 1907. 



.do. 
.do. 
.do. 



-do. 
.do. 
.do. 



Dr. Ransom to Dr. Hick- 
man, July 2, 1907. 

Dr. Davison to Dr. Melvin, 
Dec. 21, 1907. 

Dr. StauSer to Dr. Treacy, 
Feb. 25, 1908. 

-...do 



.do. 
.do. 
.do. 



Roy Stebbins to Dr. Melvin, 

Feb. 27, 1908. 
Dr. Cary to Dr. Treacy, 

Apr. 9, 1908. 



Dr. Peck to Dr. Melvin, 

July 8, 1908. 
Dr. Peck to Dr. Melvin, 

July 13, 1908. 
Dr. Stauffer to Dr. Melvin, 

Feb. 5, 1909. 
Dr. Luckey to the writer, 

July 21, 1909. 
Dr. McHenry to Dr. Melvin, 

June 14, 1910. 



Sun River Land and Live Stock Co.; 250 out of 
10,000; 190(i; 1 case shipped to Washington, 
D. C, died en route. 

Cowell flock; 40 to 00 out of 2,000; many years. 

Cowell flock; 15 to 30 cases; almost every year. 

McDonald flock; 15 to 20 cases some years. 
Sun River Land and Live Stock Co.; 200 out of 

10,000; 1905. 
Whitcomb flock; 30 out of 4,000; 1898. 

Phillips flock; 15 out of 15,000; 1906. 
Rambouillet sheepmen claim to have had several 

cases in imported and at least one case in native 

sheep. 
Phillips flock; 2 or 3 at date of writing. 

Pirrie flock; 250 to 300; 1907; parasite found in 3 

of 4 examined. 
McDonald flock; 125 dead at date of writing. 

Infected country; 1907. 

Do. 



Sheep from Flatwillow country and probably 

infected there. 
In Blackwood, Taylor, Sprinkle, Sprinkle Bros., 

and McCann flocks; 1907; reported by Dr. 

Staufl'er. 
Rieder flock; 1907; reported bj' Dr. Stauffer. 
Town flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Stauffer. 
McDonald flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Nutting. 

Leech flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Nutting. 
Green flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Cary. 
Pirrie flock; 1907; reported by Dr. Cary. 
One case in imported ram. 

McDonald flock; several eases at date of writing; 
parasite found; 10 per cent lost the winter before. 
Sprague and Lavid flocks; 1908. 

L. Sprinkle, C. Sprinkle, and Taylor flocks; 1907 

and 1908. 
Northwestern Live Stock Co.; 1908. 
Blankenbaker flock; 1908. 
One case; 1907. 
Ewes affected; not clearly gid. 

Most of these giddy bands seem to have originated 
in the Flatwillow country. 



One sheep shipped to Washington, D. C. 

Parasite forwarded to Washington, D. C. 

Two sheep shipped to Washington, D. C. 

Symptoms of gid in goats; date not given. 

Two cases, one showing cyst on post-mortem ex- 
amination. 



Some discrepancies will be noted in the above figures. No 
attempt has been made to ascertain which are correct. Dates of 
occurrences must also be taken with some regard for the fact that 



GID IN CANADA. 29 

a record of gid by one or more observers as occurring in two consec- 
utive years may not necessarily be a record of two outbreaks but 
merely a record of one outbreak running through the winter of one 
year into the spring of the following year. 

Giddy sheep have been sent in to tliis laboratory from Montana 
on foiu" occasions, two sheep being sent in May, 1907; one in July, 
1908; two, already noted as recorded by Hall (1909n'), in February, 
1909; and one in May, 1910. In an earUer shipment in July, 1906, 
the one sheep sent died en route. 

Both the adult and larval Multiceps multiceps have been pro- 
duced in this laboratory at Washington, D. C, and at Bethesda, 
Md., by feeding experiments in cases other than those noted by Hall 
(1909«r) in an earlier paper. 

From the foregoing it seems certain that the gid parasite was 
observed in tliis country at least as early as 1901. It does not 
seem hkely that the many claims made for its occurrence earlier than 
this are entirely imfounded. During an investigation of gid in Mon- 
tana in the spring of 1910, the writer met a number of sheepmen 
who claimed to have had their first losses from gid some time between 
the years 1885 and 1890. These men have been acquainted with the 
disease ever since and still have it in their flocks, so that there is no 
reasonable doubt as to gid having occurred in this country previous 
to 1890. Certainly it now has a foothold in this country. 

GID IN CANADA. 

The presence of gid in either the United States or in Canada must 
necessarily be of interest to the other of the two countries, omng to 
the possibUity of the disease being carried across the border by dogs 
or wild carnivora or in shipments of sheep. In the course of a corre- 
spondence with this Bureau relative to gid, Dr. J. G. Rutherford, 
the veterinary director-general of Canada, undertook to find out 
whether gid had been imported into Canada by making inquiry of 
sheep breeders and dealers. From a synoptical statement of the 
replies made by thirteen dealers it appears that eleven have never 
seen the disease in their flocks, and Doctor Rutherford himself 
states, in a letter of October S, 1909: 

During many years' practice, I have, personally, never seen the disease in Canada, 
although I was quite familiar with it in Scotland when a young man. I have never 
heard the disease mentioned by Canadian veterinarians, although, as you are aware, 
this is no proof of its nonexistence in the country, as the members of oiu- profession 
are seldom called upon to treat sheep. 

Of the two dealers who had seen the disease, F. H. Neil, of Lucan, 
Ontario, "has had no trouble with gid parasite for a number of 
years. Has seen some flocks affected in both Canada and the 
United States, but does not specify where." 



30 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 



The other dealer, J. H. Patrick, of Ilderton, Ontario, ''has had no 
trouble with this parasite the last few years; previously when import- 
ing sheep in large numbers experienced considerable loss, which he 
attributed to this cause." 

From a scientific standpoint, the data given above do not 
justify a positive record of the gid parasite from Canada, and if the 
disease exists there at all it seems from the above evidence to be 
comparatively unimportant. At the same time, the presence of gid 
in northern Montana would constitute a ready source of infection 
for sheep in Canadian territory. 

THE HOSTS AND OCCURRENCES OF THE LARVAL MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 

In compiling the following list of hosts, an attempt has been 
made to put them on an objective basis so far as possible. A list of 
certain or probable hosts has been compiled for those cases where 
Multiceps multicejJS, or what appears to have been M. multiceps, 
has been found at least once in the host in question. A Hst of erro- 
neous records has been compiled for cases where there is certainly 
an error in the record or in the finding. A third list of doubtful 
forms seems to be the only proper place for cases where the evidence 
is inadequate for the acceptance or rejection of the record. 

In the first list given below, only those records of occurrences in 
sheep and cattle which are of historic interest or which show geo- 
graphic or time distribution are given, as the former are the usual 
and the latter the very common hosts of the parasite. In the other 
cases there are included only those where the presence of a coenurus 
has been shown at least once for that host, assuming it as probable 
from the evidence at hand that the coenurus in question was Multiceps 
multiceps. 

List of certain or probable occurrences of the larval Multiceps multiceps. 



Host. 


Locality. 


Authority. 


Notes and comments. 


Sheep 


Greece 


Hippocrates 1825a 

do 


Probable cases 460-375 B. C. 


Goat 


do 


Do. 






Rolflnck l(356a 

Wepfer 1658a 




Do 


Switzerland 




Cattle . 


do 


..do 




Sheep . 


Germany 


Scultetus lC72a 

Bruimer 1694a 


Date of first certain case 1634. 


Cattle 


Germany (?) 


According to Kiichenmeister 


Do 




Wepfer 1724a 


(1880a). 


Sheep 


"Gurtwillae" 

Germany 


Leske 1780a 


First recognized as a cestode para- 


Do 


do 


Goeze 1780a 


site. 
Independently recognized as a par- 


Do 


Italy 


Fontana 1784a 

.do 


asite. 


Cattle 


.do 








Schrank 17S8a 




Cattle 


do 


do 




Chamois. 


Alps 


Retzius 1790a 


At least one case. 


Sheep 


England 


Moorcroft 1792a 

do 


Claimed to occur in France and 


Cattle 


. ..do 


Italy also. 


African antelope — 




Rudolphi 1808a 


Accepted here on basis of subse- 




quent findings. 



HOSTS AND OCCURRENCES OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 31 

List of certain or probable occurrences of the larval Multiceps multiceps — Continued. 



Host. 


Locality. 


Authority. 


Notes and comments. 


Sheep 


France 


Bosc ISlGa 






CO 
Pans, France 


Bousset lS22a 


According to Gurlt (1831a). 


Do 


Hofacker 1823a 

De Blainville 1824a 

Yvart lS27a 


According to Numan (1850b). 


Chamois 




France 


First record from spinal canal, ac- 


Do 


.do. . 


Dupuy 1831a.. 


cording to Braun (1894a). 
From spinal canal. 




(?) 
England 


Frenzel(Date?) 

Youatt 1834b 


According to Gurlt (1831a) and 


Do 


Numan (1850b). 
"Hydatid" in septum lucidum; 
symptoms giyen. 


St. Domingo goat. . . 


do 


Youatt 18360 


Germany 


Pluskal 1844a 


nurus on basis of subsequent 
findings. 
Indefinite number of spinal cases. 


Do 


Austria 


do 


Do 


Ireland 


Bellingham 1844a 

Klencke 1844a. 




Goat 


Germany. . 


.~||^ 


Mouflon . 


Montpelier, France 

(?) 
(?) 

Holland 


Geryais 1847b 


One case. 




Ammon(?) 


According to Numan (1850b). 


Sheep 

Do 


St6rig(Date?). 


Found it twice in the medulla ob- 


Numan 1830b 


longata, according to Numan 
(1850b). 
Among others, one had ccenurus 


Angora goat.. 


..do 


...do 


in cerebrum, medulla oblongata, 
and in spinal cord. 
Ccenurus is figured. 


Cattle 


Kempton, [Bavaria?]. 
Germany 


Hering 1852a 


Occurred in 1850-51. 




Hagmaier 1853a 

Jacques and Lafosse 
1854b. 
do 


In spinal canal. 


Antelope 


(?) 

(?) 
Scotland . . 




Goat . . . 




Sheep.... . 


McCall 1857a 




Do 




Reynal 1857a 




Cattle 


do 


do 




Sheep 

Horse 


Alfort, France 

Vieima, Austria 


Valenciennes 1857a 

Spinola 1858b 


In spinal cord and brain; sent by 

Delafond. 
In spinal cord; specimen in veteri- 


Sheep 


do 


nary school. 
In spinal cord. 


Goat 


Toulouse, France 

....do .• 


Baillet 1859b 


One certain and 1 possible infection 




do 


of 4 experiment animals. 


Sheep 




Leisering 1859a 

Leisering 18G2a 

.. do 


Eichler's subcutaneous specimen; 


Do 


Germany 


found to be ccenurus by Eichler, 
Leisering, and Zenker. 
Von Nathusius' subcutaneous 


Gazelle (Antilope 

dorcas). 
Horse 


do 


specimen; Eichler's specimen 
noted again. 
One case in a zoological park. 

One case; accepted on symptoms 


Prussia 


Esse et al. 1863a: Kei- 

per et al. 1864.a 
Krabbe 1864h 


Sheep 


Iceland 


and in view of other cases. 
Disease often seen here; accepted 


Cattle 


....do 


do 


on Krabbe's finding of adult 
worm in dogs. 
Rare; accepted as above. 


Sheep 




do 


Claimed to occur; accepted as 


Cattle 


do 


do 


above. 
Do. 


Do 


England 


Cooper 1865a 


Three cases. 


Chamois 


Germany 


Frauenfeld 1808a 

B6nion 1874a 


Do. 


Sheep 


Vienna, Austria 


Several spinal cases seen by Roll. 


Sheep 


Miiller 1877a 


One case with ccenurus in spinal 


Antelope (Buhalis 

sp.). 




Bertolus and Chau- 

yeau lS79a. 
Dixon 1883a 


cord; 1 in medulla oblongata. 
Host from .\frica. 


South Australia 




Do 


Parona 1884a 




Horse 


Culm, Germany 

Buenos Avres, Argen- 
tine Republic. 


Schwanefeld 1885a 

Wernicke 1886a 

Rabe 18S9a 


Contained one-sixteenth of a liter 


Sheep 


of fluid. 


Hipvotragus equi- 
nus (?). 

Sheep 


Host from South Africa; in brain. 


Montana, U. S 

New Zealand 


Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep 

Breeder 1901r and 5. 

Gilruth 1902a 


thyroid, lymph glands, and mus- 
culature. 
.Vccepted on symptoms and post- 


Do 


mortem findings. 


Goat 


Cape Colony 


Buckley 1904a 

Robinson 1905a 


Several cases; accepted on symp- 


Cow 


do 


toms and post-mortem findings. 
One case. 



S2 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

List of certain or probable occurrences of the larval Multiceps multiceps — Continued. 



Host. 


Locality. 


Authority. 


Notes and comments. 


Cattle . . . . 




Leblanc and Freger 

1907a. 
Roth 1907c 


One case. 




Germany 


Do. 


Cattle 


England 


Pollock 1908a 




Horse 


Shetland 

Germany 


White 1909a 

Pfab 1909a 


One case; symptoms of gid and 


Cow 


recovery of parasite by operation. 
The only "record found of the para- 




England 


Lloyd 1909a 


site from the vertebral canal in 
this host. 


Cattle 


Italy 

Montana and Wash- 
ington, D. C. 
Missouri, U. S 


Vicariotto 1909a 

Hall 1909a 




Sheep . . . 




Goat 


Doctor Luckey in let- 
ter of July 21, 1909. 
Borstelmahn 1910o — 

Pfab 1910a 


From personal correspondence with 


Cow 


Doctor Luckey already noted. 

Bladderworm the size of pigeon egg 
in medulla oblongata; probably 
M. multiceps from size and loca- 
tion. 

Fifty-eight operations from 1903 tQ 
1909, inclusive; additional cysts 
found in the medulla oblongata 
in 3 cases. 


Cattle 


do 


Sheep 


German Southwest 
Africa. 


Scheben 1910a 









A reference by title only to an article by Gough (1909a) on "A Cnenurus in the Duiker" can not be veri- 
fied at this time, as the article is not yet available. The article is referred to here on the likelihood of a 
ccenurus from the duiker antelope being the gid parasite. 

In the foregoing list the sheep, cow, goat, horse, chamois, mouflon, 
gazelle, and some antelope forms — given as antelope, African ante- 
lope, Buhalis sp. and Hippotragus equinus (?) — are accepted as hosts 
of Multiceps multiceps. 

The parasite is recorded from sheep in Greece, Germany, Switzer- 
land, England, France, Italy, Ireland, Holland, Scotland, Austria, 
Denmark, Iceland, Argentine Republic, Sardinia, South Australia, 
New Zealand, German Southwest Africa, and the United States. Its 
presence is claimed or implied, by local names for gid or otherwise, 
in Hungarj'- by Ktichenmeister (1853e) and Cobbold (1867o), in Cape 
Colony by Hellier (1894a) and Hutcheon (1904<t), in Chile and Spain 
by Monfallet (1899a), and in Shetland by White (1909n'). 

It is recorded from cattle in Switzerland, Germany, England, Italy, 
France, Iceland, Denmark, and Cape Colony. 

It is recorded and figured from the goat in Holland by Numan 
(1850b); it was experimentally produced in this host in France at 
least once and possibly twice by Baillet (1859b); the characteristic 
symptoms and post-mortem findings are recorded for several cases 
in Cape Colony by Buckley (1904^'); and on the strength- of these 
records the following have been accepted: Jacques and Lafosse's 
(1854b) case, Youatt's (1836<t) "hydatid" from the brain of a goat 
with symptoms of gid, Klencke's (1844a) record from Germany, 
Hippocrates's( 18250-) necessarily uncertain record from Greece, and 
Doctor Luckey's cases recorded here from the United States. 
Klencke claims to have produced the ccenurus by an absurd inocula- 
tion experiment, but this host record may be accepted in view of 
the possibility that he inoculated a goat already infected with gid. 



HOSTS AND OCCURRENCES OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 33 

Doctor Luckey's cases are accepted on the objective g^roimds that the 
cases seemed to be gid and that the. parasite is known from that host 
and has been found in this country. Baillet (1859b) says that gid 
has often been seen in goats by veterinarians, but does not add any 
particulars. 

Spinola (1858b) states that the veterinary school at Vienna had a 
specimen of the gid parasite taken from the spinal cord of a horse. 
Esse and his associates (1863c»') and Keiper and his associates (ISeSiT 
and 1864fl') found a parasite in the brain of a horse in Prussia, and on 
the strength of the symptoms concluded that it was a coenurus, but 
they apparently did not study the parasite to see what it was. 
Schwanefeld (1885a) states that he found a coenurus containing 
one-sixteenth of a liter of fluid in the brain of a horse in Germany. 
Youatt (1834/5) saw a horse that showed symptoms of staggering; 
post-mortem examination disclosed a ''hydatid" in the septum 
lucidum. Wliite (1909a) operated on a horse that showed symptoms 
of gid and extracted a cyst from the brain. On the combined evi- 
dence the above cases are accepted, as well as those of Amnion, 
Bousset, Frenzel, and Hof acker as given by Gurlt (1831a) and Numan 
(1850b), which cases are covered in articles not at present available. 

Multiceps multiceps is recorded from the chamois in Switzerland 
by Retzius (1790a), in France by De Blainville (1824a), in three 
cases in Germany by Frauenfeld (1868a), and in one case by Roth 
(1907c), a total of six cases. Frauenfeld also states that the royal 
head forester had noted several cases of gid in the chamois and that 
the disease is well known to old chamois hunters. 

The parasite has been found in the gazelle in France by Baillet 
(1859b) and in Germany by Leisering (1862a). 

It has been found in the antelope by Jacques and Lafosse ( 1854b), in 
Hippotragus equinus ( ? ) by Rabe( 1889a) , in Buhalis sp. by Bertolus and 
Chauveau (1879a), and in an African antelope by Rudolphi (1808a). 

In Rabe's case the host had only been in Germany fourteen days 
after its arrival from Africa, and Leisering's host animal was from a 
zoological park; the host noted by Bertolus and Chauveau had been 
shipped from Africa to France, and Rudolphi's antelope is specified 
as African. Gough's (1909<^r) coenurus, alluded to on page 32 is 
another case of a coenurus in an African antelope. These facts 
seem to indicate that the gid parasite is not uncommon among 
the Bovidse of Africa. Nor is this an unreasonable supposition. 
Varieties of native sheep and species of antelope are so distributed 
throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe that there is practically no 
break in the geographic distribution of host species between the 
European countries known to be infected antl the Cape of Good Hope, 
where it appears from the records of Hellier ( 1894a), Buckley ( 1904ct), 
Robinson (1905a), and Robertson (19081-0 that the disease also 
51674°— Bull. 125, pt 1—10 5 



34 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 



exists. The transinission of the parasite across this area, if indeed 
it was not originally distributed from Egypt, or the valley of the 
Euphrates, would be a simple matter for the flocks of nomadic shep- 
herds or individual hosts of the adult or larval parasite. Scheben 
(1910n') states that gid is a trouble of long standing in German 
Southwest Africa. The increasing interest in the parasite fauna of 
Africa ought to result in additional light being thrown on this subject. 

Multiceps multiceps has been recorded once from the mouflon in 
France by Gervais (1847b). Schrank's (1788a) statement that it 
occurs in the mouflon is without any record of authority or of per- 
sonal observation. 

The above list shows records of the occurrence of Multiceps multiceps 
more than eight times in the spinal cord of sheep, in one case with a 
simultaneous infection of the brain, and in one case with simultane- 
ous infection of the brain and medulla oblongata. The parasite is 
twice recorded from the medulla oblongata alone in the sheep with a 
total of three cases. It must be much more common in these loca- 
tions than records of cases show, as Frenzel (1794a) stated over a 
century ago that the parasite occurs in the brain, medulla oblongata, 
and spinal cord. It is recorded from the subcutaneous tissue of the 
sheep twice, from the spinal cord of the horse once, from the spinal 
cord of the cow once, from the medulla oblongata of the cow four 
times, and from the brain, thyroid, lymph glands, and musculature 
of the gazelle once. 

If from the above list of certain and probable occurrences there were 
selected those cases where it is certain that the parasite was Multiceps 
multiceps, on the basis of description, figures, and feeding experiments, 
the certain hosts would be limited to the sheep, cow, and goat. 

In the following list are shown those cases where a record is based 
on data which I regard as inadequate, or where the author himself 
has considered the case doubtful, or where both these things are true: 

List of doubtful cases of the occurrence of the larval Multiceps multiceps. 



Host. 



Reindeer ( Cervus 

tarandus). 
Giraffe (Camelo- 

pardalis giraffa). 
Horse 



Do 

Roe deer ( Cervus 
capreolus). 

Sheep 

Pig 

Horse 

Dog 



Locality. 



Lapland. . 
Not given. 
....do.... 



.do. 
.do. 



Germany 

Finland! 

United Slates 
Italy 



Authority. 



Hoff berg 1759a 

Rudolphi 1804a. 1810a 

Rudolphi 1808a 

Gurk. 18.31a 

Barthelemy 1839a 

Jaeobi 18S2a 

Kolster 1893a 

Stiles 1898a 

Guerrini 1909a 



Notes and comments. 



Symptoms resemble gid; so accepted 
"by Braun (1894a). 



Statement that hydatids are rare in the 

brain of the horse. 
Brain and spinal cord. 
Mere statement; accepted bv Diesing 

(18o0a). 
Entire flock afflicted with spinal gid. 
In heart. 
Subcutaneous. 
Given in list of museum specimens. 



The above list shows that it is doubtful whether the reindeer,' 
giraffe, roe deer, pig, and dog can be considered as hosts of Multiceps 
multiceps. 



DOUBTFUL CASES OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS, 35 

In the historical sketch (p. 10) the necessity for considering the rein- 
deer a doubtful host of Multiceps multiceps has already been shown. 
It is true that Diesing (1850a) lists the parasite from this host, credit- 
ing the observation to Retzius, but as a matter of fact Retzius (1790a) 
lists the parasite from Capra rupicapra, the chamois, and not from 
the reindeer. 

Rudolphi (1804a) states that in conversation with Le Vaillant, the 
latter told him that he had found worms in the brain of the gazelle 
and the giraffe. Later, Rudolphi (1810a) lists these as " ICanurus 
cerehralis" from the gazelle, and " Woenurus" from Camelopardalis 
giraffa, showing that he himself felt very doubtful of this last case. 
In view of the fact that no one has previously or since recorded a 
coenurus from this host, and that Rudolphi (1819a) later omits the 
giraffe from his list of hosts of this parasite, and in view of the fact 
that the giraffe's habit of feeding largely on high-growing foliage 
renders it little likely to have its food contaminated by the feces of 
the known hosts of the adult Multiceps multiceps, we must consider 
this record of Le Vaillant's finding very doubtful. 

Rudolphi's (1808a) bare statement that hydatids in the brain of 
the horse WTre rare, together with his failure to list his Ccenurus cere- 
hralis from this host in his later work of 1810, leaves it extremely 
doubtful whether he knew of any cases of the occurrence of C cere- 
hralis in this host. 

Gurlt (1831a), in a list of hosts of Multiceps multiceps, lists it from 
the horse, specifying the brain and spinal cord as locations. As he 
gives no record of cases and no authority for this statement, it seems 
likely that he was reasoning the possibility of this from the occur- 
rence of the parasite in both locations in the sheep. 

The acceptance of the roe deer, Cervus capreolus, as a host of Mul- 
ticeps multiceps by Diesing (1850a) and by subsequent writers is 
based by Diesing and by such writers as take the trouble to cite an 
authority on Barthelemy (1839n'). Barthelemy states that gid 
occurs in sheep, in the roe deer, and in other animals. He does not 
claim to have seen the parasite in the roe deer, nor does he cite any 
one who has, hence his statement, though very plausible, is not con- 
vincing, and this record must also be held doubtful. 

According to Jacobi (1882^'), in a flock of 400 yearling lambs, 186 
died with coenuri in various parts of the spinal cord, but no coenuri 
were found in the brain. The correctness of this statement seems 
questionable. That coenuri should be found m the spinal cord in a 
great number of sheep would be surprising; that none should be 
found in the brain at the same time is scarcely to be believed. Pos- 
sibly the disease in question was hydro-rhachitis and serum accu- 
mulations in various parts of the cord were mistaken for coenuri. 

Kolster (1893a) found several vesicles, each having several heads, 
under the pericardium of a pig. He could not decide whether it was 



36 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 



the larva of Tsenia coenurus or of some other Txnia having a coenurus 
larva. I consider this case extremely doubtful. If Multiceps multi- 
ceps could develop in the pig, it seems likely that it v^^ould not be 
altogether uncommon, and hence would have been reported hereto- 
fore. Furthermore, the location is an unlikely one for this parasite. 
As the specimen in question does not seem to have had the study 
necessary for an identification, we are compelled to include the pig 
among the doubtful hosts of Multiceps multiceps. 

In discussing gid in the United States, we have already considered 
Stiles's (lS98a) record of subcutaneous coenurus in the horse. 

Guerrini (1909a), in a list of the parasite specimens in the collec- 
tion of the veterinary college at Bologna, lists Coenurus cerehralis 
Rud. from Bos taurus (meninges) and Canis familiaris (meninges). 
The adult v/orm, Tsenia coenurus Kiichenm., is also listed from Canis 
familiaris (intestinum). Such a record of Coenurus cerehralis from 
the meninges of the dog must ncessarily be looked upon with doubt. 
When an extremely unusual or unlikely thing is recorded, the 
acceptance of the record must depend upon the evidence. The 
reliability of the collector, the accuracy of the person identifying the 
specimen, the features on which the identification was made, and 
the validity of the label, are all matters which should be made known. 
No evidence is furnished in this case, and hence the record of such a 
parasite in the dog can not be accepted without reservation. 

In the opinion of the writer all records of the giraffe, the roe deer, 
the pig, and the dog as hosts of the larval Multiceps multiceps should 
be thrown out, as they are all probably erroneous. 

The following list includes those cases where the records show 
undoubted errors. 

List of the erroneous records of the occurrence of the larval Multiceps multiceps. 



Man 

Do? 

Rabbit (?). 

Rabbit 

Do 

Man 

Dog 



Rabbit. 



Cat 

Camel 

Reindeer ( Cervus 

tarandus). 
Camel ( Camelus 

dromedarius). 

Rabbit 

" Ex Jpalaciscapen- 

sis." 

Pig 

Cow 

Spalai capensis 

Cow 



Do. 
Do. 



Locality. 



Not given. 
England.. 
Not given. 

do.... 

France 

Germany. 
do.... 



.do. 



Authoritj'. 



Rolfmck Ui56a.. 
Mooreroft 1792a. 
Lasnnec 1804a... 
Cloquet ISlSa... 
Leblond 1837a... 
Klencke 1844a. . . 
do 



.do. 



do Numan 1850b. 

Not given do 

do Diesing 1850a. 



.do. 



do 

Port Natal. 

Not given. . 

do 

Port Natal. 
Not given. . 



Diesing 1850a et al. 

do 

do 



Veterinarian 1855a.. 

Fuchs 1859a. 

Diesing 18ri4a 

Pagenstecher 1877a. 

.do Von Linstow 1878a. 

.do ! Moniez ISSOa 



Notes and comments. 



Claims to have seen a case. 

Produced by injection of rotten coenu- 
rus in veins. 

Produced by inoculation of rotten coen- 
urus on brain. 

Misprint or based on mistranslation. 

Based on .4ran (1841a). 

Based on Retzius (1790a). 

Based on De Blainville (1824a). 
Based on Leblond (18.37a). 



In spinal cord. 

Von Nathusius's subcutaneous speci- 
men from sheep erroneously listed. 
Subcutaneous; error as above. 
Do. 



EEEONEOUS RECORDS OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 37 

List of the erroneous records of the occurrence of the larval Multiceps multiceps — Cont'd. 



Host. 



Locality. 



Authority. 



Notes and comments. 



Cow. 



Not given . 



Leuckart 188Gd. 



Goose . 
Cow . . 



.do. 
.do. 



Neumann 1888a. 
Railliet 1893a... 



Horse 

Sanbur ( Cervus 
uvicolor). 

Cow 

Antelope 

Camel 



Germany. 
Not given. 



do 

Hassall 1898a. 



.do. 
.do. 
.do. 



Vaullegeard 1901a 

do 

Espejo V Del Hosal 

1905^. ■ 



Same error as Pagenstecher (1877a) 

above. 
Based on Hering (ISCla). 
Same error as Pagenstecher (1877a) 

above. 
In eye; based on Heincke (1882a). 
In list. 

In eye. 
Do. 
Based on Lafosse. 



The weight of evidence indicates that there are no certain, proba- 
ble, or reasonably doubtful cases of the occurrence of Multiceps mul- 
ticeps in the larval state in man, the cat, rabbit, camel, sanbur, goose, 
or the hypothetical " Ipalax capensis." It is also reasonably certain 
that Moorcroft (1792a) and Klencke (1844a) have erred in recording 
Gcenurus from the dog; that Retzius did not find a coenurus in 
Cervus tarandus, as Diesing (1850a) credits him with doing; that the 
record of Multiceps multiceps from the spinal cord of the cow given 
by Fuchs (1859a) is not based on an actual case; that M. multiceps 
has not been found in a subcutaneous location in the same host as 
Pagenstecher (1877a), VonLinstow (1878a), Moniez (1880a), Leuckart 
(1886d), and Railhet (1893a) give it; that Hemcke's (1882a) parasite 
from the eye of the horse was not a coenurus as Railliet (1893a) 
states, and that M. multiceps is not known from the eye of the cow 
and of the antelope, as Vaullegeard (1901a) states. 

Rolfinck (1856a) refers to a vertigo caused by vesicles full of 
water and serous humor in the brain of sheep and of man. Un- 
doubtedly he refers to gid and its parasite in sheep, but the vertigo 
referred to in man has been found to be due to Cysticercus cellulosx 
and Echinococcus granulosus in those cases where the most compe- 
tent scientists have investigated the parasite. Klencke's (1844a) 
statement that he has seen a coenurus in the brain of man does not 
of itself give sufficient data on which to reject the finding, but a 
study of Klencke's work, in which he claims to have repeatedly 
produced coenurus in various hosts by inoculation of coenurus par- 
ticles, shows that his statements are not reliable, and for this reason 
his quite improbable claim of the occurrence of coenurus in man is 
thrown out. Gervais and van Beneden (1859b) have stated that 
Klencke's statements do not merit confidence. 

In his nomenclature of diseases of man, Bertillon (1903^') lists 
Ccenure under diseases of the digestive tract, and the Commission 
Internationale (1909<:v), in its revision of the same work, has retamed 
this listing. As the records indicate, there are probably no cases 
of coenurus in man. Whether such cases have occurred or not, 



38 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

there are no good grounds for listing coenurus or cysticercus as 
intestinal parasites, as Bertillon and the commission have done. 

Moorcroft (1792a) states that anatomists and, to a still greater 
extent, butchers and shepherds, have long known of collections of 
colorless fluid in thin capsules in the brain of sheep and cows, and 
adds: ''They have been met with in dogs." 

The larval cestodes of dogs include, according to various authors, 
Cysticercus and Ecliinococcus. Von Linstow (1889a) lists a Coenurus 
sj). from the dog, attributing it to Pagenstecher, but Pagenstecher 
(1877a), in the reference cited, refers to a growth on the neck of 
Myopotamus coypus, which he says might have been a growth of 
a cystoid or colloid nature such as is found in dogs, but which he 
finds to be a coenurus. Klencke (1844a) claims to have produced 
a coenurus in the dog by injecting rotten coenurus into its veins, a 
claim so absurd as to at once discredit his findings. Guerrini's 
(1909a') record of a museum specimen has already been mentioned 
as doubtful. There are, therefore, no adequate and reliable refer- 
ences to a coenurus from the dog, and as it is on the face of it 
highly improbable that the larval Multiceps multiceps would occur 
in the dog, we may throw out Moorcroft's casual reference, 

Laennec (1804a) states that the gid parasite occurs in the sheep, 
the cow, and perhaps in the rabbit. The last host is included on the 
basis of hunters' statements that they have seen gid in rabbits. 
Moniez (1880a) says he has seen such a case of gid in the rabbit, but 
it was not due to a coenurus, and Lsennec admits that no one had 
ever seen the parasite in such cases. 

Cloquet (1818a), in an article which appears to be an abstract of 
Lsennec (1804a or 1812a), has made a positive statement of Laennec's 
tentative inclusion of the rabbit as a host of the gid parasite. 

Leblond (1837a) notes that Lgennec (1812a) did not know of any 
vesicular worms from the brain of the rabbit, and describes a cyst 
taken from the vertebral canal of a rabbit by Dr. Emmanuel Rous- 
seau and sent to Leblond, who finds it to be Coenurus cerehralis. De 
Blainville (1828a) had previously described a coenurus, which he 
calls an Ecliinococcus, from the peritoneal cavity of a rabbit. This 
and subsequent records of the sort have been usually, and probably 
correctly, taken as cases of Multiceps serialis, which was described 
as a separate species by Gervais (1847a). Gervais and van Beneden 
(1859b) have examined Leblond's specimen and think it is not C. 
cerehralis. Klencke (1844a) claims to have produced a coenurus in 
the rabbit brain by inoculating the brain with bits of rotten coenurus, 
but such a claim settles that his record has no right to recognition. 

Numan (1850b) states that Engelmeyer in 1850 recorded the 
presence of a coenurus in the liver of a cat, and as Numan treats of 
only one species of coenurus, the inference is that this was an infection 



DISCUSSION OF EEEONEOUS EECOEDS. 39 

with Multiceps multiceps, which, however, would be a highly improb- 
able occurrence. Engelmeyer's article is not available for verifica- 
tion, but Neumann (1893i) has attempted to verify this record and 
finds that Engelmeyer's case is a quite ordinary record of Echinococcus 
in the liver of a cow. According to Neumann, the error arose from 
Numan writing ''kat" instead of "koe." Neumann criticises 
Cobbold for translating Numan's ''Veelkop" as Ccenurus instead of 
Polycephalus. The criticism seems hardly fair to Cobbold, as 
Numan uses Ccenurus, Polycephalus, and ' ' Veelkop " interchangeably to 
mean one and the same thing, i. e., the gid parasite. And at the point 
in question, Engelmeyer's case is cited to show that the "Veelkop" 
is not confined to the brain and spinal cord. Had Numan intended 
to include Echinococcus in his discussion of ''Veelkop," he would 
hardly have referred to one case from the liver as an exception to 
the rule that it occurs regularly in the nervous S3"stem, as the reverse 
would be true for Echinococcus. It is probable that Numan has 
erred in including Engelmeyer's case in the way he did, and certain 
that he quoted it wrongly. 

Diesing (1850a) and many subsequent writers have listed Multi- 
ceps multiceps from the camel, the authority, where given at all, being 
usually De Blainville (1824a). By a coincidence, or by one author 
misleading the other, Numan (1850b) in the same year assisted in 
strengthening Diesing' s error by also listing the parasite from the 
camel, basing the statement on De Blainville's case in Aran (1841a). 
As a matter of fact, Aran says that De Blainville found the parasite 
in a chamois, and De Blainville himself says it was a chamois. The 
explanation appears to be that either Diesing or Numan or both of 
them confused "chamois" and "chameau," or perhaps the printer 
did. Espejo y del Rosal (19055) says that Lafosse saw the gid 
parasite in the camel. Lafosse (1854b) has noted gid in the sheep 
and (Jacques and Lafosse, 1854b) in the antelope, but never in the 
camel so far as available records show. At any rate, there is no 
authority at hand for listing the camel as a host of Multiceps multiceps. 

It has already been shown (p. 35) that Diesing (1850a) erred in 
crediting Retzius with listing Multiceps inulticeps from Cervus taran- 
dus, as Retzius (1790a) records it from the chamois, not the reindeer. 

Diesing (1850a) also states that what is probably a specimen of 
Ccenurus cerehralis is known ''Ex Ipalacis capensis." There is no 
mammal genus from which the genitive "Ipalacis" could be derived, 
and Diesing (1864a) has later given the name as Spalax capensis, in 
this case merely calling the parasite a ccenurus. Von Linstow 
(1878a) lists the host as Georhynckus capensis, and it seems likely 
that the ccenurus in question was taken from this host, the generic 
name of which is properly Georychus, according to Palmer (1904a). 
The true Spalax does not occur in the locality given. From such a 



40 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

host as this rodent it is altogether unlikely that the parasite was 
Multiceps multiceps. 

A writer in the Veterinarian (ISSSn-) states that Ccenurus cerebralis 
is found in the brain of the sheep, ox, horse, pig, and man. There 
is no citation of authorities or cases to back the assertion, and it is 
evident that the pig is included here through error. Kolster's ( 1893a) 
doubtful case has already been discussed. 

Fuchs (1859a) lists the gid parasite from the sheep, cow, and 
horse, specifying the brain and spinal cord in all cases. It seems 
quite evident that there was nothing but the possibility of its occur- 
rence in the spinal cord of the cow to justify this statement, and as 
no record of such an occurrence seems to have been made until half 
a century later, this statement may be rejected. 

It has already been pointed out (p. 31) that Von Nathusius's case, as 
given by Leisering (1862a), who reported it, was one of subcuta- 
neous ccenurus in the sheep. Pagenstecher ( 1877a), Moniez ( 1880a), 
Leuckart (1886d), and Railliet (1893a) have erred in reporting this 
from the calf or ox. Von Linstow (1878a) has perhaps followed 
Pagenstecher in listing C. cerebralis from under the skin in the cow. 

Neumann (1888a) devotes a paragraph to gid in the goose, quoting 
Hering's (1861^') case, and stating that the tumor found on the brain 
was considered as a dead and atrophied hydatid. As a matter of 
fact, Hering says that a mass without membranous structure, as is 
often the case in shriveled bladderworms, was found in the left 
hemisphere of the cerebrum, but nowhere a hydatid. 

Railliet (1893a) states that the ccenurus found by Heincke in the 
eye of a horse is usually referred to Cmnurus cerebralis. Heincke 
(1882a), according to a secretary's abstract, found a bladderworm 
in the eye of a foal. Under the microscope the worm showed a hook 
circlet. There is nothing to indicate that the cestode was a ccenurus, 
and as the description would fit Cysticercus cellulosse, known as a 
parasite of the eye and of the horse, it seems more reasonable to con- 
sider it as this than to assume, contrary to the evidence of the one 
circlet of hooks, that we had here a ccenurus in an organ nowhere 
authentically recorded as a site of C. cerebralis, and in a host which 
is none too certainly listed as a host of ccenurus. Neumann (1888a) 
considers Heincke's form a cysticercus. 

Hassall (1898a), in a list of hosts and parasites, records Ccenurus 
cerebralis from the sanbur, Cervus unicolor. As no authority is 
given, and as no such record is to be found, the case appears to be an 
error. 

Similarly, Vaullegeard's (1901a) record of the same parasite from 
the eye of the cow and of the antelope is without authority or record 
of cases and is rejected as improbable and devoid of evidence. 



OCCURRENCES OF ADULT MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 41 

THE OCCURRENCES OF THE ADULT MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 

So far as the writer is aware, the dog is the only known host of the 
adult Multiceps multiceps. Von Linstow (1878a) hsts Tsenia ccenu- 
rus from Canis lagopus, but the three authorities referred to by him 
in this connection, Diesing (1864a and lS64b), Leuckart (1856a), and 
Krabbe (1865e), do not mention it.' RailHet (1893a) states that 
Mobius found T. ccenurus in Viilpes lagopus, but no reference is 
given, and I have been unable to verify this statement. Hence the 
blue fox must be considered a doubtful host of Multiceps multiceps. 

Hering (1873a) fed a common red fox, Canis vulpes, with larval 
Multiceps multiceps on three occasions and once fed two Cysticercus 
tenuicollis. The fox passed numerous proglottids, but when finally 
killed post-mortem examination showed only three tapeworms 2 to 3 
inches long. According- to Hering, these were T. coenurus. They 
seemed to be when compared with other specimens on naked-eye 
examination. Further, the fox had been fed for a year and a half 
on horse meat, and three tapeworms could not have arisen from two 
cysticerci. However, there were 42 to 48 hooks instead of 28 to 36, 
and the large hooks measured 0.65 mm. long. Such a hook measure- 
ment is four times the average for Multiceps multiceps, and if cor- 
rectly given would make it quite certain that the cestode in question 
was not M. multiceps. The uncertainty is such that Canis vulpes 
must be considered a doubtful host of M. rnulticeps in this case. 

Braun (1894a) gives a reference to Fiirstenburg (1858a), not avail- 
able to the writer, and states that Fiirstenburg fed Coenurus cere- 
iralis and Cysticercus tenuicollis to dogs and foxes and recovered 
tapeworms 45 to 50 inches long from the dogs and one-fourth to 7 
inches long from the foxes. It is uncertain from this statement 
whether the tapeworms in the foxes included Txnia coenurus or not. 

All other statements that the fox is a host of this parasite appear 
to be mere assumption, without case or authority to support them. 

The assertion or assumption that the wolf is a host of M. multiceps, 
made by Kiichenmeister (1853e), Von Siebold (1854b), Bourcier 
(1859a), Gervais and Van Beneden (1859b), Baillet (1866b), and 
numerous others, is likewise without cases or authority to support it, 
and the wolf can not even be listed as a doubtful host so far as the 
records go. In view of the close relationship of wolves to the dog, 
however, it is very probable that they may serve as hosts of the 
adult gid parasite. 

Equally devoid of basis, so far as actual records are concerned, 
are the claims made or suggested for the martin by Von Siebold 
(1854b), Piitz (18820-), and Dewitz (1892b), for the coyote by Cur- 
tice (1890c), Burch (18930-), and Shaw (1901a), and for the polecat 
by Dewitz (1892b). 



42 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 



Railliet (1893a) states that he has been unable to infect the cat. 

The writer has personally examined tapeworms from coyotes and 
other wolves trapped in Montana, but has not found M. multiceps. 
Doctor McClure, in a letter of December 5, 1906, to Doctor Melvin, 
says he has examined two coyotes in Montana and found no intestinal 
parasites. 

The following list includes all records found of the occurrence of 
the adult Multiceps multiceps not produced by feeding experiments 
and many of the cases where it has been produced by experiment. 
In the case of the latter some effort has been made to avoid duplica- 
tion, due to translations, later editions, etc. The list does not include 
those cases where the occurrence of the parasite is merely claimed. 

List of recorded occurrences of the adult Multiceps multiceps in the dog. 



Locality. 


Authority. 


Notes and comments. 


Germany 


Von Siebold 1852a 


By experiment. 
Do. 


Do 


Kuchenmeister 18536 

Haubner 1854b 


Do 


Do. 


Do 


Von Siebold 1854b 


Do. 


Do 

(?) 


Kuchenmeister 18551 

Fiirstenburg 1858a 


By experiment; first trihedral specimen. 
By experiment; according to Braun (1894a). 
By experiment. 
Do. 


Germany 


Hering 1859a . 


France 


Baillet 1859b.. 


England 


Gam gee 1859a. . 


Do. 


France 

Denmark 


Pouchet and Verrier 18()2b. . 
Krabbe 18(i2a 


Do. 
Found in 4 out of 185 dogs. 
By experiment. 

Found in 5 out of 500 dogs. 
Found in 18 out of 100 dogs. 


France 


Milne-Edwards and Vail- 

lant 1803a. 
Krabbe 1865d 


Denmark 


Iceland 


do 


Faroe Islands 


do 


England 


Cobbold 18C70 


By experiment; never otherwise. 
By experiment. 
Do. 


Germany 


Hering 1873a . 


Italy 




France 


Bertolus and Chauveau 1879a 
Leuckart 1880b 


Found in 1 out of 84 dogs. 

By experiment: a trihedral specimen and 1 with geni- 
talia reversed. 
Found in 1 out of 100 dogs. 


Germany 


Do 


Schone 18S0a 


Switzerland 


Zschokke lS87o 


Found in 3 out of 177 dogs. 


France 


Neumann 1888a 


Not stated. 


Germany 


Deflke 1891a 


Found in 1 out of 200 dogs; also by experiment. 

This is an error; see p. 21. 

Ward (1897b) and Stiles (189Sa) think this is M. seri- 

alis. 
Found in 4 dogs. 


United States 


Curtice 1892g 


Do 


Ward 1896b 


Germany 


Lehner 1897a 

Calamida 1901c 


Italy 


Scotland 


Law 1903a 


By experiment in 1804 or 18G5; date and place fur- 
nished me in personal communication of July 2, 
1909. 

By experiment; a trihedral specimen. 


Germany 


Johne 19041 


Australia 


Brown 1902a 


United States 


Hall 1909a 


By experiment. 

Dog died of intestinal obstruction due to mass of Mul- 
ticeps multiceps. 

One specimen said to have been produced by feeding 
coenurus. 

This article. 


France 


Henry 1909a 


United States 

Do 


Taylor and Boynton 1910a... 
Hall 1910/3 









ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GID. 

In the seventeenth century Scultetus (1672a) notes that gid was 
common enough then in Germany to be known among the peasantry 
under the name of "Wirbling." In the eighteenth century Vv^epfer 
(1724n') says it was a common disease of cattle in Switzerland. 
Maillet (1836a) says it is more common in southern than in northern 



ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GID. 43 

France. Von Siebold ( 1854b) states that gid is not rare in cattle in 
south Germany, especially Bavaria, but that it is scarcely known in 
north Germany, and Ziirn (1882a') says it causes great loss among 
sheep in south Germany. Krabbe (1865d) found the adult parasite 
very common in dogs in Iceland, and the gid disease must have been 
very common, as he says, for the cystic stage is much more commonly 
found than the adult. Cobbold (1867o) says the disease is not 
important in England, but is in Hungary, though later Heatley 
( 1884a) says that gid is very common in England. Wernicke ( 1886a) 
states that the parasite is viewed with alarm in the Argentine Repub- 
lic. MoUer ( 1891a) says coenurus is common in cattle at the Salzburg 
slaughterhouses, and is not rare in Steiermark, Karnten, Tyrol, Bu- 
kownia, and Dalmatia. Scheben ( 1 9 1 0^) says that gid is an old trouble 
in German Southwest Africa, often becoming conspicuous by its dam- 
age to sheep breeding, and now and then occurring as an epizootic. 

It will be seen from the above' that while gid enjoys a wide distri- 
bution, there are some districts which appear to favor the disease, and 
in these places there is a constant and considerable economic loss from 
the disease. How great that loss is may be judged from a few figures. 

Youatt (1834a) says that at least 900,000 sheep die annually of gid 
in France. (Most authors quote Youatt as saying a million sheep, 
but I have not found this statement.) Belhomme (1838a) says that 
in some years gid attacks one-fifth to one-fourth of a flock. Bar- 
thelemy (1839)^) says not less than one-fifth of the lambs suffer 
from gid in France. Reynal (1852<t) notes the loss of 50 out of a 
flock of 110 lambs from this disease, and Clok(1868n') notes Kuers's 
case, where 200 out of 400 died of gid. Reynal ( 1857a) states that gid 
attacks from one-tenth to more than one-fourth of the sheep in some 
places. Von Siebold (1854b) says gid kills more than 10 per cent in 
some flocks. Clok (1868^') says the average yearly loss from gid is 
5 to 6 per cent, and that in Germany it may kill 70 per cent of the 
lambs. Heitzmann (1868a) says that at Rohrdorf 50 to 60 head of 
cattle die in some years. Dixon (1883n') says that before the fencing 
in of sheep runs began in South Australia it was not unusual for 2 
per cent of the hoggets to die of "crankiness," or gid. Neumann 
(1892a) states that Gasparin put the loss in Germany at 15 per 1,000 
the first year, 5 the second, 2 the third, and 1 the fourth. Armatage 
(1895) says of gid: "The annual losses are about 10 per cent. It 
always prevails in some districts, particularly in Scotland." Not 
long ago Penberthy (190Qa) noted a case in England where 300 
out of 400 lambs died of gid inside of four months. Numan (1850b) 
says that gid is not as common in Holland as in some countries, and 
claims that Tessier put the loss in France at 5 per cent, and that Kuers 
in 1840 stated the loss in Germany as no less than this. Diem ( 190Qa) 
points out that with existing values gid in cattle causes an appreciable 



44 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

loss, and notes instances where the values of cattle successfully oper- 
ated on increased over their slaughter value as giddy animals from 35 
and 55 to 485 marks. Vollrath (1905a) states that during the winter 
and spring of 1904-5 there were one or two cases weekly among 
cattle at TJttenweiler. Pfab (1910a') notes two cases where cattle 
breeders lost an entire year's increase; in one case 8 animals out of 
8, and in another 12 out of 12. He records a total of 58 operations 
on cattle in the years 1903 to 1909, inclusive, with 34 cures. The 
figures already given for the United States, and the writer's personal 
investigation in Montana, show losses of 2 or 3 to 10 per cent among 
some Montana flocks, and such a loss in a State where sheep are rated 
by the Bureau of Statistics « of the United States Department of 
Agriculture at $4.20 a head is worth considering. It appears that 
the loss in Montana amounts to $10,000 in some years, and is at all 
times a steady drain on the flocks. 

It is evident from these flgures that gid is really a dangerous and 
important disease. It has held its own for centuries in civilized 
Europe. Nearly a century ago, Bosc (1816a) said it was notable for 
the loss of sheep which it occasioned. Later Eschricht (1840b) 
speaks of it as a plague. Kuers in 1840, according to Numan ( 1850b), 
classed it as one of the three most important diseases of lambs. 
Eschricht (1841 g) says it " of ten rages * * * as a virulent conta- 
gion." Clok ( 1868n') says it may be regarded as producing the greatest 
comparative loss of all sheep diseases. Van Beneden (1889a) says "■ The 
ccenurus of the sheep is a true calamity when it spreads in a country." 
Dewitz (1892b) says gid is the most important parasitic disease of sheep 
around Berlin. In Germany the Government was trying to stamp 
out the disease before the middle of the last century, and Kiichen- 
meister was working under a government grant when he demon- 
strated the complete life cycle of the parasite in 1853. 

The sheep is conspicuous for its comparative freedom from bac- 
terial diseases, a fact especially noticeable at this time, when the cow 
and other animals are being called to account in the tuberculosis 
campaign. But the sheep is equally conspicuous for its suscepti- 
bility to animal parasites, and of these the gid parasite is one of 
the most deadly. In this country gid is not as widespread as infec- 
tion with the stomach worm, Hsemonchus contortus, nor is it so gen- 
eral throughout the flocks it attacks as scab. At the same time, 
the stomach worm at its worst can not claim anything like the 
approximate 100 per cent lethality of the gid parasite, and the 
scab parasite is readily eliminated by a rather simple routine treat- 
ment, not comparable to the delicate and uncertain surgical treat- 
ment necessary to relieve a sheep of the brain parasite. Unlike 

oCrop Reporter, U. S. Department of Agriculture, vol. 12, no. 2, February, 1910. 



ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GID. 45 

bacteria, animal parasites show little preference in attacking weak 
or poor animals, and gid probably selects its victims oftener from 
strong, vigorous sheep and with less regard to the care given them 
than even the stomach worm or the scab parasite. 

Neumann (1888a) and many others, previously and since, state 
that in general giddy animals should be butchered in the first stage 
of gid, as the meat is still good. In the case of valuable animals, an 
operation should be undertaken if indicated by favorable symptoms. 
He also urges that sheep affected with spinal gid should always be 
killed. His advice is perhaps as good as could be given. In general, 
the greater value of cattle, as Piitz (1882n') has noted, would justify 
an operation oftener than sheep values would. This is especially 
true since the wool value of the living sheep is considerably less 
than the dairy value of the living cow. The figures already quoted 
from Diem (1906<x) show the value of successful operations. Opera- 
tion is, of course, especially indicated in the case of breeding animals. 
We know of no adequate medicinal treatment for gid, and experi- 
ments along this line have so far been unsuccessful. (See Hall, 1909a 
and Moussu, 1910a.) 

It seems that animals affected with gid seldom get to the larger 
slaughterhouses, although F. Braun (1906n') says he has often found 
it in meat inspection of cattle. Edelmann (1896a) says Ccenurus 
cerehralis is ordinarily unimportant in meat inspection, but that in 
Hesse and Sachsen-]\Ieiningen the meat of giddy animals is to be 
held as depreciated in value or worthless, according to the degree of 
the disease and the condition of the carcass. Carreau and Rousseau 
(1909i'i') give directions for detecting giddy sheep in abattoir inspec- 
tion in France. Lloyd (1909a), in an article on meat inspection in 
England, lists Ccenurus cerehralis as one of the most common larval 
cestode parasites involved in meat inspection, and Clarke (1907a), 
as already noted, says he has met many cases of gid in sheep at the 
slaughterhouses in England. Moreau (1909a), in an article on meat 
inspection, gives the methods for detection of the gid parasite and lists 
animals so infected for partial condemnation. 

Bourrier, Charpentier, and Lafourcade ( 1884a) only found the gid 
parasite once after five and a half years at the Villette abattoir, in 
spite of a careful examination of the brains of the 18,000 to 20,000 
cattle that were slaughtered there monthly. Schone (1886a) only 
found it once among 8,962 sheep at Chemnitz. 

From a legal standpoint, gid constitutes an impairment of contract 
in cattle sales in some places in Europe, according to Semmer ( 1885c), 
who gives this period as 14 days in Nassau and Thurgau, 15 days in 
Canton St. Gallen, and 31 days in Canton Schaffhausen. These 
periods are too short, as Semmer notes. Gerlach (1872a), who gives 
the same figures, says the period should be three months, but states 



46 THE GID PAEASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

that such a fixed period can be dispensed with on tlie ground that 
only an occasional breeding ram comes up for consideration, and 
especially because we are in a position from a scientific standpoint 
to render a correct judgment on any concrete case. Heusinger 
(1853<ir) states that in the "Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales" 
the law governing impairment of contract allows three days for the 
development of "dera," or vertigo, in sheep, cattle, and horses. 
I am unable to state whether this covers cases of gid or not. 

ALLEGED CAUSES OF GID. 

Before the gid parasite was known as the cause of gid various 
theories were advanced to account for the disease, and after the 
parasite was known to be the cause many theories were advanced 
to account for its presence. Nor did the proposal of new theories 
cease after Kiichenmeister (1853e) had demonstrated the parasite's 
life history. Below are cited the various theories found by the writer, 
only one authority being assigned for any given theory. 

Stier (1776a) discredits the theories that gid is due to insect 
larvae in nose, to inflammation, to stagnation of blood, or to hot days 
followed by cold nights. 

Gericke (ISOSfc) considers gid as due to an accumulation of fluid 
in the head from hypersecretion of glands injured by blows on the 
animal's head. 

Youatt (1834cv) opposes the theories ascribing the disease to poi- 
sonous plants, delay in docking, to hoarfrost, apoplexy, or to weak- 
ness of meninges; also Hogg's theory of gid as due to the injection of 
fluid from the central canal of the spinal cord into brain. 

Maillet (1836a) notes the idea that gid in cattle was due to heavy 
yokes. 

Tschudi ( 1837a) has a footnote, signed Leuckart, w^hich notes that 
gid occurs in unhorned sheep and that certain formative material 
should go into the horns the first year, or, failing that, the high 
blood pressure favors cyst production. 

Schellhase (1839(r0 objects to the theory of cachexia and malnu- 
trition as causes of gid and proposes the opposing theory that the 
heightening of the vegetative life of sheep by suppression of activity 
in the period of youth causes a superfluity of material which gives 
rise to worms. 

Eschricht ( 1840b) favors the idea that bad feeding and wet meadows 
give rise to gid. 

Blacklock (1841a') adopts a theory, credited by him to Hogg in 
1812, that gid is due to the back of the sheep being chilled. 

Pluskal (1844nr) quotes the following theories of spinal gid: That 
it is due to chilling, metastasis, rheumatic- toxic trouble, too much 
jumping, excessive stretching of hip ligaments, and feebleness of the 
ram. 



ALLEGED CAUSES OF GID. 47 

Numan ( 1850b) notes that gid has been referred to bad food and 
water, ColcMcum autumnale, Alliumn, vineale, Ranunculus fiammula, 
an adder, damp stalls, cutting teeth, and temperature variation. 

Reynal (1858a) thinks that gid is due to heredity or the breeding 
of too young animals. 

Gamgee (1859a) cites Navieres's theory that a fly perforated the 
sheep's skull and deposited eggs. 

Davaine (1860a) mentions the theory of gid as due to precocious 
obesity. 

Dun (1864ar) puts forth a common mixture of truth and error, 
rather than a theory, when he says that sheep pick up the eggs or larvae 
of tapeworms dropped by dogs, rabbits, or sheep, and that the ova 
of flukes also cause gid. 

Fiirstenburg ( 1865b) condemns Mahnke's theory that gid parasite 
eggs get into the blood and are destroyed, the dissolved product 
subsequently uniting with the egg or semen of the host, thus forming 
a fetus which later becomes the parasite. 

Vollrath ( 1905a) states that in advising farmers to have their cattle 
operated on for gid he met with marvelous causes for the disease, and 
this, too, in Germany where the knowledge of the etiology and 
prophylaxis of the disease has coexisted with the disease for half a 
century. It is not, therefore, surprising that, according to Doctor 
Treacy, of this Bureau, in a letter of June 5, 1907, the sheepmen of 
Montana have been classing the gid trouble as loco, poison weed, 
water on the brain, grub in the head, etc., "and have not paid any 
attention to the destruction of the animals that have died." 

NAMES APPLIED TO GID AND GIDDY ANIMALS. 

The wide distribution of gid and the peculiarity of its symptoms 
have led to its receiving a great number of popular names in various 
languages. In the following lists these names, together with the 
medical names, have been arranged in chronological order under each 
country. Where the name is applied to a giddy sheep instead of to 
the disease it is indicated by an asterisk (*), and where the term 
applied is an adjective it is indicated by a dagger (t). Spinal gid is 
indicated thus (§). This list is necessarily incomplete, especially 
as regards terms used in Asia, from which continent no records of 
gid are available, although the disease probably occurs there. 

The authority cited for a name will often, but not always, be the 
one found using it first. In every case the question of the propriety 
of using the word to denote gid, or infection with Multiceps multice'ps, 
must be referred to the authority cited. 

Germany.— RolfiDck 1656a, Vertigo; Scultetus 1672a, Wirbling; Guetebruck 1766(t; 
Drehnigkeit, Dummlichkeit, Taubsucht, Verriickung der Sinnen; Batsch i786a,* Dreher, 



48 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES, 

*Seegler; Gmelin 1790a, Drehen, Springen; Stier 177Ga, -\dreJiende; Blor'h 1782a, 
Drehkrankheit, *Springer, *Segler; Frenzel 1794a, ■falbern, Damischseyn, Drchlinge, 
Drehsucht, Dummheit, felbisch, Irregehen, -Kreislauf, Ldppischseyn, Ringlichtwerden, 
Schwindel, Seglen, Taumeln, Traben, Verrilckung, WurJIichtseyn; Rohlwes 1813a, 
*Dahmeler, *Ringldufer, *Traher; Numan 1850b, Dummsein, Eibischwerden, Kopf- 
krankheit,Ringldufen, Ringlicht; Hering 1853<t, Dippelkrankheit, Dipplichkeit; Reynal 
1854b, *Wurfler; Spinola 1858b, *Irrlinger, *Propheten, *Schwindler, *Seitlinge; Blu- 
menbach 1802a, Queesenkopfe; Pluskal 18440-, Drehe, ^gebrochenes Kreuz, %Gnub- 
berkrankheit, Hydrocephalus hydatideus, ^Hydrops hydatibus vudullx spinalis, Hydrops 
hydatideus ovium, %Kreuzdrehe, ^Kreuzldhme, ^ Tabes dorsalis, Traberkrankheit; Kiich- 
enmeister 1855f, Dreh-Krankheit; Gurlt 1831a, ^Atrophia medullx spinalis; Erdt 1870a, 
*Reitbahndreher, *Zeigerdreher; Gerlach 1872a, Kollern; Piitz 1882(T, *^Kreuzdreher, 
*^Kreuzschldger, * Tau7nler; Moller 1891a, Drehwurmkrankheit; Friedberger u. Frohner, 
1904(T, Blasenschwindel, Drehbewegung, Kopfdrehe, Kreisbewegung, Manegebewegung, 
Narrischsein, Quesenkopf, Reitbahnbewegung, Rollbewegung, *Schwinder, Taumelsucht, 
Tolpischsein, Wdlzbewegung, Zeigerbewegung; Braun, F. 1906a-, \ddmisch; Diem 1906o-, 
^wiirfig; Worbs 1909(T, ]wurflig; Pfab 1910(T, Coenurus-Krankheit. 

France. — Bloch 1788a, sauteuse, tourneuse; Moorcroft 1792a, tournoiement, vertige; 
Bosc 1816a-, tournis; Carrere 18260-, lourd; Numan 1850b, *tourneurs; Reynal 1857a, 
avortin, *cingleur, lourderie, *trotteur, *voilier; Cruzel 1869a, avertin; Benion 1874a, 
*portant au vent, ^paraplegie hydatique; Neumann 1892a, etourdissement, hydrocephale, 
^tournis lombaire, vertigo; Armatage 1895, etourdi, eturdi. 

England. — Moorcroft 1792a, gid, turn; Home 1795a, staggers; Turton 1806a-, dunt, 
rickets; SchuUing 1821a-, sturdy; Youatt 1834a-, gig, goggles, turnsick; Veterinarian 
1855a-, vertigo; Spooner 1888a, blob-whirl, giddiness, sturdy-gig; Neumann 1892a, 
%hydatic paraplegia, hydatido-cephalus, hydatid on the brain, ^lumbar gid, ^medullary gid, 
punt, turnside; Armatage 1893a-, hydrocephalus hyddtidxus; Armatage 1895, canurus 
cerebralis, hydatids; Penberthy 1897c, ccenurosis; Cave 1903a-, pothery. 

Lapland. — Hoffberg 1759a, Ringsjuka. 

Ireland. — Bellingham 1844a, staggers. 

Scotland. — M'Call 1857a, sturdy. 

Holland. — Numan 1850b, *Draaijers, Draaiziekte, *Dravers, %Kruislamheid, %Schuur- 
ziekte, *Zeilers; Blumenbach 1802a, Draaikoppen. 

Italy. — Fontana 1784a, folie, *fols, male vertiginoso, storno; Neumann 1892a, ver- 
tigine idatigiyiosa, vertigine per cenuro. 

Denmark. — Krabbe 1864h, Dreiesyge. 

Cape Colony.— Hellier 1894a, Jia^A'o;^; Buckley 1904a-, Malkopziete, Maikop Ziekte; 
Hutcheon 19040-, gid, sturdy, turnsick; Gilchrist 1909or, ^lumbar-gid. 

Argentine Republic — Armatage 1895, -fmoonstruck; Monfallet 1899o-, locura 
de las ovejas. 

South Australia. — Dixon 1883a-, crankiness, turnsick. 

Chile. — Monfallet 18990-, cenurosis, Iparaplejia hidatica, torneo, torneo encefalico, 
%torneo lumbar. 

Spain. — Monfallet 1899a-, modorra; Espejo y del Rosal 1905a-, torneo. 

Switzerland. — Retzius 1790a, ■\sturmig. 

United States. — Livingston 1809o-, dizziness, staggers; Clok 1847a-, water in the head; 
Verrill 1870d, gid, sturdy, vertigo, ivater-brain; Teller 1879a, hydatid in the brain, hydatid 
of the brain, turnsick; Crutchfield I88O0-, hydatid on the brain; Killebrew I88O0-, hyda- 
tids; Stewart 1880a, giddiness, turnside; Powers 1887a, blind staggers; Burch 1895a-, 
turnsids; Sommer 1896c, turnstick; Campbell & Lacroix 1907a-, turn sickness; letter 
of Dr. Cary to Dr. Treacy, May 21, 1907, flocoed. 

The writer finds that in Montana gid is known as loco, lamb loco, bug in the head, 
and blind staggers, and that giddy sheep are commonly said to be crazy. 



COMMON NAMES OF GID. 49 

To the above list might be added \epa voaoc, the Greek for 
"the sacred disease," epilepsy, by which Hippocrates (1825^') desig- 
nates various forms of vertigo in man and animals, and under which 
term it is likely that gid in sheep was known. There should also be 
added the Latin term, "tornatio," used by Acharius (1782) but not 
assigned to any country. 

Unless an author specifies otherwise, it is assumed that a term used 
by him for gid was in use in the country from which or of which he 
wrote. This accounts for the terms listed from the United States 
at a time when it is doubtful whether there was any gid in this country. 

As the present writer has not been in a position to check all errors 
of spelling as such and can not guarantee that they were not local 
variations, all names are included as found, even where it seems fairly 
clear that there is an error, as in the case of "turnstick" of Sommer 
(1896c). 

The term ''locoed" is included on the strength of Doctor Cary's 
statement that in his opinion it includes in Montana sheep that are 
actually suffering from gid, and on the evidence of Dr. E. T. Davison, 
who reports under date of December 21, 1907, that he has examined 
several sheep reported as "locoed" and found them all infested with 
the gid parasite. The writer has found that giddy sheep are very 
commonly referred to in Montana as locoed, and in one place, where 
no loco weed or loco disease existed, gid was known as lamb loco. 

Such a term as "ringsjuka" is included on the possibility, discussed 
elsewhere, of the disease in question being gid. 

The term "moonstruck," referred to the Argentine Republic by 
Armatage (1895), is presumably a translation. 

COMMON NAMES OF THE GID PARASITE. 

The following list is not complete, but covers the commoner names 
used in the more important countries, one authority for the name 
being cited: 

Germany. — Blumenbach 1802a, Die Queese; Gurlt 1831a, Gemeinschtvanz, Vielhopf; 
Kiichenmeister 1855f, Schaa/quese; May 1855a, Gehirn-Vielkopf; Leuckart 1863a, 
Drehwurm; Erdt 1870a, Coenurusblase; Ziirn 1882n-, Gehirnblasenbandwurm, Gehinibla- 
senwurm, Gehirnquese, Quesenbandwurm. 

France. — D'Arboval 1827a, coenure cerebrale; Yon Siehold 1852a,, Ver du tournis; 
Neumann 1888a, cenure cerebrate. 

England. — Moorcroft 1792a, social hydatid; Cobbold 1874c, gid hydatid, many headed 
hydatid; Cobbold 1874v, gid-hydatid tapeworm. 

Holland. — Blumenbach 1802a, Herszen-Blaas-Worm; Numan 1850b, Vielkop- 
Blaasworm der Hersenen . 

Cape Colony. — Gilchrist 1909(r, ivater-bags. 

United States. — Verrill 1870d, tvater brain; Stiles 1898a, gid bladder worm. 

A Scotch sheepman in Montana refers to the gid parasite as the "sturdy bag" and 
states that it is commonly known by this name in Scotland. 



50 THE GID PAEASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

SYNONYMY. 

The following table of synonymy is based on over 600 references 
and is probably very nearly coinplete. The essential discussion 
of the correct names of the parasite has already been given under 
the historical sketch: 

Genus MULTICEPS Goeze 1782a. 

1782. Multiceps Goeze 1782a. 

1782. Cerebrina Achariue 1782; erroneously substituted for Multiceps. 

1782. Txnia vesicularis Goeze 1782a, pro parte. 

1786. Hydatigena Goeze 1782 of Batsch 1786a, piro parte. 

1788. Vesicaria Schrank 1788a. 

1790. Ilydatula Abildgaard 1790, pro parte. 

1798. Hydatis Virey 1798a, pro parte. 

1800. Polycephalus Zeder 1800a; Multiceps renamed. 

1808. Ca;nurus Rudolphi 1808a; Multiceps and Polycephalus renamed. 

1815. Polycephops Rafinesque 1815a; Polycephalus renamed. 

1818. Hydatidula Cloquet 1818a; misspelling for Ilydatula. 

1824. Cxnurus Bremser 1824a, for Ccenurus. 

1830. Ca;nureus Bory de St. Vincent 1830a; misprint for Coenurus. 

1830. Vesicularia Schrank of Bory de St. Vincent 1830a; Bory de St. Vincent 1830a 

is author of Vesicularia; misspelling for Vesicaria. 

1831. Cccnurs Gurlt 1831a; misprint for Ccenurus. 
1844. Canurus Goodsir 1844g; misprint for Ccenurus. 

1850. Txnia Goeze of Diesing 1850a; in synonymy of Ccenurus; Linnaeus 1758a is 

author of Txnia. 
1850. Ilydatula Batsch of Diesing 1850a; in synonymy; Abildgaard 1790 is author of 

Ilydatula. 
[1870.] Ccemmas McClure [1870a-]; misprint for Coenwrns. 
1895. Cenurus Armatage 1895; misprint for Coenurus. 
1900. Cystotaenia R. Leuck. of Braun 1900a; error. 

1902. Vermis Bloch 1782a of Sherborn 1902a. See discussion of synonymy. 
1905. Coencerus Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder 19055; misprint for Coenurus. 
1905. Cxnurus Cuvier 1825a of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; Bremser 1824a is author 

of Cxnurus. [Schinz, and not Cuvier (1825a), should be held responsible 

for the use of this form. See discussion of synonymy.] 

Species MULTICEPS MULTICEPS (Leske 1780a) Hall igio/J. 

1780. Txnia multiceps Leske 1780a. 

1780. Vermis vesicularis socialis Bloch 1780a. 

1782. Txnia vesicularis cerebrina Goeze 1782a. 

1782. T. vesicularis, multiceps Acharius 1782. 

1786. Hydatigena cerebralis Batsch 1786a. 

1787. Tcenia globuleux of Chabert 1787a, pro parte; misdetermination. 

1787. Tenia globuleux of Chabert 1787a, pro parte; misdetermination. 

1788. Vesicaria socialis (Bloch 1780a) Schrank 1788a. 
1790. Txnia cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Gmelin 1790a. 

1790. Txnia socialis (Bloch 1780a) Retzius 1790a; probably 1786a. 

1790. Txnia cerebrina (Goeze 1782a) Retzius 1790a; probably 1786a. 

1790. Txniae cerebrinae Retzius 1790a; probably 17869. 

1795. Txnia hydatigenia Home 1795a. 

1795. Txnia hydatigena of Home 1795a; error. 

1798. Hydatis cerebralis (Batsch 1768a) Virey 1798a. 



SYNONYMY OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 51 

1800. Txnia visceralis muUiceps Goeze (1782a) of Zeder 1800a; this combination should 

be attributed to Zeder 1800a. 
1800. Txnia muUiceps Goeze (1782a) of Zeder 1800a; this combination should be 

attributed to Leske 1780a. 
1800. Taenia hydaiigcna Pallas (1766b) of Zeder 1800a; error. 
1800. Txnia ccrehralis Syst. Nat. Linn. (1790) of Zeder 1800a;=Gmelin 1790a. 
1803. Jlydatula socialis (Bloch 1780a) Schrank 1803a. 
1803. Polycephalus orinits Zeder 1803a. 

1803. Polycephalus bovinus Zeder 1803a. 

1804. Tocnia vesicularis cerebrina muUiceps Goeze (1782a) of Laennec 1804a; this com- 

bination should be attributed to Lsennec 1804a. 

1804. Tocnia cerebralis Bruguiereof Laennec 1804a; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Laennec 1804a apparently; Bruguifere (1792a) uses Taenia but does not 
involve this species; Bruguiere (1791a) in the accessible copy has this part 
in script and hence unreliable; form given is Tenia cerebral, unscientific. 

1804. Hydatis cerebralis Bosc [1802a] of Laennec 1804a; this combination should be 
attributed to Virey 1798a. 

1804. Polycephalus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Lsennec 1804a. 

1808. Ca:nurus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Rudolphi 1808a. 

1810. Hydatula cerebralis Batsch (1786a) of Rudolphi 1810a; this combination should 
be attributed to Rudolphi 1810a. 

1810. Taenia vesicularis Goeze (1782a) of Rudolphi 1810a; in synonymy; is a generic, 
not a specific synonym. 

1818. Hydatidula cerebralis Batsch (1786a) of Cloquet 1818a; this combination should 
be attributed to Cloquet 1818a. 

1818. Taenia vesicularis cerebrina muUiceps Goeze [1782a] of Cloquet 1818a; this combi- 
nation should be attributed to Cloquet 1818a. 

1825. C[£enurus] cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Bremser 1824a. 

[1828.] Cysticercus tenuicollis of Buzaringues [18280'] in Reynal 1857a; misdetermi- 
nation. 

1831. Coenurs cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Gurlt 1831a. 

1833. Ccenurus cerebralis Lamarck and Rudolphi of Rose 1833a; this combination 

should be attributed to Rudolphi 1808a. 

1834. Cysticercus tenuicollis of Youatt 1834<t. 
1834. Hydra hydratula Linnaeus of Youatt 1834o'. 
1837. Polycephalus ccenurus Tschudi 1837a. 

1837. Polycephalus cerebralis Cloquet (1818a) of Tschudi 1837a; this combination 

should be attributed to Laennec 1804a. 
1844. Polycephalus cerebralis V. of Pluskal 1844<t; this combination should be 

attributed to Lsennec 1804a. [V.=Virey?]. 
1844. Taenia vesicularis cerebralis G. of Pluskal 1844n-; this combination should be 

attributed to Pluskal 18440-. [G.=Goeze?]. 
1844. Hydatis cerebralis Bl. of Pluskal 1844n-; this combination should be attributed 

to Virey 1798a. [Bl.=Blumenbach?] 
1844. Hydatis polystomos medullaris Pluskal 1844<t. 
1844. "Taenia cerebralis (Pennant, Turton)" of Bellingham 1844a; this combination 

should be attributed to Gmelin 1790a. 
1848. Tosnia vesicularis Goeze 1782 of E. Blanchard 1848e; this combination should 

be attributed to Laennec 1804a, apparently. 
1848. Hydratula cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) E. Blanchard 1848e. 
1850. Hidatula cerebralis Batsch (1786a) of Diesing 1850a; this combination should be 

attributed to Diesing 1850a. 
1850. Ccenurus serialis Gervais (1847a) of Diesing 1850a et al; misdetermination. 
1850. Hydatis cerebralis Blumenbach (1802a) of Numan 1850b; this combination should 

be attributed to Virey 1798a. 



52 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

1850. Tunia hydatigena Fisscher (1788a-) of Numan 1850b; this combination should be 

attributed to Pallas 1766b. 
1850. Tsenia vesicularis socialis Goeze (1782a) of Numan 1850b; this combination 

should be attributed to Numan 1850b. 
1850. rolycephahis cerebralis, ovinus Zeder (1803a) of Numan 1850b; this combination 

should be attributed to Numan 1850b. 
1850. Ilydalis polystomos ?nerfuZZam Muskal (1844) of Numan 1850b: this combination 

should be attributed to Pluskal 18440-. 
1850. Polycephalus ovium Numan 1850b. 

1850. Hydatis facialis of Dupuy [Date?] in Numan 1850b; Dupuy not available. 
1850. Ccenurus cerehreux of Dupuy [Date?] in Numan 1850b; Dupuy not available. 
1850. Tama gf/ofcuZewxChabert of Dupuy [Date?] in Numan 1850b; Dupuy not available. 
1850. Hydatis cereiraKs Lemark of Dupuy [Date?] in Numan 1850b; this combination 

should be attributed to Virey 1798a. 
1850. Polycephalus (Canurus) cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Numan 1850b. 
1850. Tsenia cerebralis, vesicularis von Siebold 1850a. 
1852. Taenia cerebralis Linne of Reynal 1852«'; this combination should be attributed 

to Gmelin 1790a. 
1852. Polycephalus ovium Zeder (1803a) of Reynal 18520; this combination should be 

attributed to Numan 1850b. 

1852. Taenia multiplex Leuckart 1852b; a corruption of Tsenia multiceps. 

1853. Taenia cerebralis Linnseus of Baird 1853a; this combination should be attributed 

to Gmelin 1790a. 
1853. Hydatis cerebralis Bosc of Baird 1853a; this combination should be attributed to 

Virey 1798a. 
1853. Caenurus cerebralis Rud. of Baird 1853a; this combination should be attributed 

to Bremser 1824a. 
1853. Taenia caenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Ktichenmeister 1853e; first naming of strobila 

form. 

1853. Taeniae cwnuri Ktichenmeister 1853e; plural of Tunia canurus. 

1854. Tseniis canurus (Tschudi 1837a) Ktichenmeister 1854<t; plural of Tsnia canurus. 
1854. Taeniae canurus (Tschudi 1837a) Ktichenmeister 1854<t; plural of Ta:nia canurus. 
1854. Tenia canurus (Tschudi 1837a) Ktichenmeister 1854h; misprint for Taenia 

canurus. 
1854. Taenia solium of von Siebold 1854b; misdetermination, 
1854. Tsenia serrata of von Siebold 1854b; misdetermination. 

1854. T(senia) ccenures van Beneden 18540. 

1855. Canurus serdalis Gervais (1847a) of Goldberg 1855a; this combination should be 

attributed to Goldberg 1855a; misdetermination and misprint. 
1855. Hidatula cerebralis Batsch (1786a) of Goldberg 1855a; this combination should 
be attributed to Diesing 1850a. 

1855. Cysticercus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Goldberg 1855a; used only in genitive in 

Latin article. 

1856. Taenia ccenurus v. Sieb. of Leuckart 1856a; this combination should be attributed 

to Ktichenmeister 1853e. 

1856. T{aenia) vesicularis cerebralis s. multiceps Goeze (1782a) of Leuckart 1856a; this 

combination should be attributed to Leuckart 1856a; see Pluskal 1844. 

1857. Tania cerebralis Linn, of Reynal 1857a; this combination should be attributed 

to Lsennec 1804a. 

1857. Polycephalus ovinus Zider of Reynal 1857a; this combination should be attrib- 

uted to Zeder 1803a. 

1858. Tnia canurus (Tschudi 1837a) Baillet 1858c; misspelling. 

1859. Taenia marginata Gotze of Fuchs 1859a; error. 

1859. Taena serrata R. of Hering 1859a; this combination should be attributed to 
Hering 1859a; misdetermination, misprint. 



SYNONYMY OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 53 

1859. Taenia e ccenuro Aut. of Ilering 1859a. 

1859. Tomia ccenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Keller 1859a; misspelling. 

1860. "^c^mocofri" of Crisp 1860a; error. 

1861. T'{amia) ccenura Koeberle 1861a; misprint. 
1861. T{senia) cocnara Koeberle 1861a; misprint. 

1861. C{ysticerciis) camurus (Tschudi 1837a) Koeberle 1861a. 

1861. Tenia canurus van Beneden 1861a. 

1863. Polycephalus cerebralis Numan of Diesing 1863b; this combination should be 

attributed to Lsennec 1804a. 
1863. Ccenurus cerebralis ? leporis cuniculi Baillet of Diesing 1863b; in synonymy of 

Tsenia ccenurus; not at present available, cited from Diesing 1864a, identical; 

this combination should be attributed to Diesing 1863b. 
1863. Tsenia {Cystotsenia) canurus Leuckart 1863 of Diesing 1863b; this combination 

should be attributed to Diesing 1863b. 
1863. Taenia scrrata Siebold of Diesing 1863b; this combination should be attributed 

to Goeze 1782a; error. 
1863. Taenia camuri cuniculi Baillet of Diesing 1863b; this combination should be 

attributed to Diesing 1863b; error. 
1863. Tenia-serrata of Letort 1863a. 
1863. Taenia multiplex Gotze of Leuckart 1863a; this combination should be attributed 

to Leuckart 1852b. 
1863. Hydatis polycephalus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Randall 1863a. 
1866. Ccenurus cerebralis Kiich. of Baillet 1866a; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Rudolphi 1808a. 
1868. Cysticercus csenurus Desmonceaux 1868a. 

[1870.] Coenurias cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) McClure [1870o']; misspelling. 
[1870.] Taenia solium of McClure [1870a-]; error. 

[1870.] " Echinococcus, polymorphus or vetrinorium" of McClure [18700-]; error. 
1874. Taenia ovilla of Benion 1874a. 

1877. Tsenia ca^nurus v. Sieb. of Pagenstecher 1877a; this combination should be 

attributed to Kiichenmeister 1853e. 

1878. Ccenurus cerebalis von Linstow 1878a; misprint. 

1879. Taenia cenurus Tellor 1879a; misprint. 

1879. Taenia caenurus (Desmonceaux 1868a) Bertolus et Chauveau 1879a. 

1879. Tcenia caenurus (Desmonceaux 1868a) Bertolus et Chauveau 1879a. 

1880. Taenia multiplex Goze of Leuckart 1880b; this combination should be attributed 

to Leuckart 1852b. 

1880. T{aenia) visceralis; cerebrina Kiichenmeister 1880a. 

1880. Vervi. vesical, socialis (Bloch 1780a) Kuchenmeister 1880a. 

1880. Polycephalus granulosus Zeder of Kiichenmeister 1880a. 

1880. Ccenurus cerebralis auct. of Moniez 1880a; this combination should be attributed 
to Rudolphi 1808a. 

1882. Tsenia caenurus Sieb. of de Lanessan 1882a; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Bertolus et Chauveau 1879a. 

1882. Canurus serialis (Gervais 1847a) Perroncito 1882a; misspelling; misdetermina- 
tion. 

1882. Caenurus saerlalis Gerv. of Perroncito 1882a; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Perroncito 1882a; misspelling; misdetermination. 

1882. Taenia ccenurus canis Ziirn 18820-. 

1882. Ccenurus cerebralis ovis Ziirn 1882ar. 

1882. Caenurus serialis Baillet of Ziirn 18820-; this combination should be attributed 
to Gervais 1847a; misdetermination. 

1882. Cysticercus e Taenia ccenur. Ziirn 1882o-. 

1885. Taenia coenur. cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Reihitz 1885a. 

1886. T[3enia] coenure Brocchi 1886a. 



54 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

1887. Tenia cceunuruz Besnard 1887a; misspelling. [Besnard 1887a is a review of 
Besnard 1886a, not available to me.] 

1893. T(senia) canusus Burch 1893«; niisprint. 

1894. Polycephalus ovis Braun 1894a. 

1895. Cenurus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Armatage 1895. 

1898. Vermis vesicularis socialis Bloch 1782 of Stiles 1898a; this combination should be 

attributed to Bloch 1780a. 
1898. C(enuro) cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Bosso 1898(T. 
1901. C{ystotsenia] coenurus (Tschudi 1837a) Benham 1901a. 
1901. Tenia csenurus (Desmonceaux 1868a) Perroncito 1901a. 

1901. Taenia canurus Van Ben. of Vaullegeard 1901a; this combination should be 

attributed to (Tschudi 1837a) Kuchenmeister 1853e. 

1902. Coenurus cerebralis bovis Mayr 1902a. 

1903. T(3enia) cserunus Buysson 1903<t; misprint. 

1903. Coenurus cerebrales Law 1903a; niisprint. 

1904. "T. [{Cystotsenia)] ccenurus Kuchenmeister of Leuckart 1853" of Stevenson 

1904b; see Diesing 1863b. 

1905. Tsenia multiceps (Zeder 1800) Rudolphi 1802 of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; 

this combination should be attributed to Leske 1780a. 

1905. Hydatis cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Blumenbach 1816a of Stiles and Stevenson 
1905a; this combination should be attributed to Virey 1798a. 

1905. Ccenurus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Cuvier 1825a of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; 
this combination should be attributed to Rudolphi 1808a; form intended, 
apparently, Csenurus cerebralis. 

1905. " T. [{Cystotsenia)] coenurus Kuchenmeister of Leuckart 1863" of Stiles and 
Stevenson 1905a; see Diesing 1863b. 

1905. Polycephalus cerebralis (Batsch 1786a) Lsennec 1812 of Stiles and Stevenson 
1905a; this combination should be attributed to Lssnnec 1804a. 

1905. " Eidatula cerebralis (Batsch) of Goldberg 1855a" of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; 
see Diesing 1850a. 

1905. Multiceps socialis (Batsch 1786a) Stiles and Stevenson 1905a. 

1905. Hydatigena socialis Batsch 1786a of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; this combina- 
tion should be attributed to Stiles and Stevenson 1905a. 

1905. Cysticercus coenurus (Kiichenmeister 1853) Koeberle 1861a of Stiles and Steven- 
son 1905a; this combination should be attributed to (Tschudi 1837a) Koeberl6 
1861a. 

1905. Tsenia ccenurus (Kiichenmeister 1853) v. Beneden 1861a of Stiles and Stevenson 
1905a; this combination should be attributed to (Tschudi 1837a) Kiichen- 
meister 1853e. 

1905. Coencerus cerebralis Vet. Ed. Amer. Sheep Breeder 1905(5; misprint. 

1908. Tenia cenurus (Tellor 1879a) Germain 1908a'. 

1908. Tsenia cerebrales (Law 1903a) Luckey 1908<ar; misprint. 

1909. T{senia) coenurnsBraxLul^QQ; in Braun u. Liihe 19090-; misprint. 
1909. Coenurus eerebralis Braun 1909; in Braun u. Luhe 1909^-; misprint. 

1909. Tsenis coinurus (Tschudi 1837a) Hall 1909a-; misprint. 

1910. Tsenia coenuris Kildee 1910a-; misprint. 

Acharius (1782) uses the form T. vesicularis multiceps; Cerebrina. 
As Cerebrina is substituted for Multiceps, used in generic sense in 
Goeze's (1782a) Tsenia vesicularis, cerebrina; Multiceps, it has been 
credited as an erroneous generic synonym. 

In crediting the genus Hijdatis to Virey (1798a), the prior use of 
the same word by Goeze (1782a) has been taken into consideration; 



SYNONYMY OF MULTICEPS MULTICEPS. 55 

Goeze, however, does not use it genericallT, but merely as a common 
noun, hence this word as used by him has no standing in nomencla- 
ture. Stiles and Stevenson (1905a) in passing judgment on "Hydatis 
Goeze ]7S2a," given by them in the synonymy of EcMnococcus, state 
in comment, ''Very doubtful whether this is used in generic sense." 

Goeze uses the word Hydatis to refer to water bladders, apparently 
considered as nonparasitic, found in animal bodies; in fact, uses it 
in just the sense in which Hippocrates and other Greeks used the 
same word ''udanc,'' meaning the same thing, a water bladder. 
Goeze denotes by it substantially the same things that are included 
in the genus Acephalocystis Lsennec (1804a), with the essential differ- 
ence that the objects in question are not regarded as parasites, and 
hence, in this case, not as animals. Therefore the word has no more 
standing in nomenclature than the word "Wasserblase," which is 
regularly used as its equivalent. Larval cestodes are constantly 
referred to by Goeze in this work as ''Eingeweidebandwurm" or 
"Blasenbandwurm," and the generic and specific names are summed 
up in a section which does not include the word Hydatis and which 
precedes any use of this word. The word Hydatis is used to denote 
an object which is compared to or contrasted with a "Blasenband- 
wurm." Thus he states that Tsenia hydatigena is very similar to 
the "Wasserblasen (Hydatis)." Again, he states that the true 
water bladders — "die eigentlichen Wasserblasen (Hydatides)" — are 
very different from the bladders in which bladderworms, "Blasen- 
wiirmer," live. In his final use of the word he states that he found a 
bladder, "Blase," in the liver of a pig. He adds that it was no 
"Wasserblase oder Hydatis," for on opening it he found the worm 
in it. If Hydatis is a genus at all in Goeze's work, it is a genus of 
larval cestodes or "Blasenwtirmer." The references show that it is 
specifically dift'erentiated from such forms. 

Sherborn (1902a) has also referred the genus Hydatis to Virey 
(1798a). Virey calls it a genus and appends the generic characters. 

Sherborn (1902a) has listed Vermis as a genus of Bloch (1782a). 
Bloch's genus is Vermis vesicularis, with the three species socialis, 
eremita, and tenixformis. It therefore appears that the genus Vermis 
of Sherborn (1902a) must be regarded as an additional synonym of 
Multiceps. 

The writer attributes the form Tsenia (Cystotaenia) ccenurus to 
Diesing (1863b), and Ciystotxnia) ccenurus to Benham (1901a) for 
the reason that so far as can be determined, the forms in question 
are first used by these writers. Leuckart's (1863a) responsibility for 
the form Cystotsenia ends with that form. The fact that he pro- 
posed this as a subgenus may be taken to imply its application to the 
forms falling within the definition of this subgenus, but such appli- 
cation involves a certain judgment of cases which we can not postu- 



56 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

late as perfectly clear, and it is too much to suppose that Leuckart 
should be held responsible for any or all forms involving the name 
Cystotsenia when it may be that a given form is based on a judgment 
or an error for which Leuckart would not care to be responsible. 
When a writer proposes a new genus or subgenus he has the option of 
also proposing the new combinations involved and assuming respon- 
sibility for them, or of leaving such an act and its responsibility to 
some one else and 'only assuming the responsibility for the genus 
or subgenus proposed. 

The reason for crediting the use of Coenurus to Schinz (see Cuvier 
1825a) and not to Cuvier (1825a) is the same as the reason why Tsenia 
cerehralis is credited to Gmelin (1790a) and not to Linnaeus. Schinz 
has used here forms not used in the French edition of 1817 of which 
this is an emended translation, and it is obviously unfair to hold 
Cuvier responsible for forms not used in the original article. 

MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 

HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

It has already been pointed out (p. 38) that Lsennec (1804a) stated 
that the gid parasite occurs in the sheep, the cow, and perhaps in the 
rabbit, and that this reference to the gid parasite in the rabbit appears 
to have been based on hunters' reports of gid in rabbits. It has also 
been stated that Cloquet (1818a) included the rabbit as a host of 
the gid parasite without reservation, but his statement appears to 
be based on Lsennec's (1804a or 1812a) article and is therefore of no 
value. Neither of these articles, then, can be considered as erroneous 
records of Multiceps serialis under the name of Coenurus cerehralis. 

The first record of M. serialis is that of de Blainville (1828a) who 
described a cyst, which he calls an Echinococcus , from the peritoneal 
cavity of a wild rabbit. He noted the serial arrangement of the 
heads, which afterwards was made the reason for the specific name, 
and thought that it might be a new species, or might be E. veterinorum. 
Despite de Blainville's decision that the form was probably Echino- 
coccus, his article shows evidence of a misconception of that genus 
and of errors of observation, and it is quite certain that the parasite 
was Multiceps serialis. It is so considered by Gervais and van 
Beneden (1859b) and by Railliet (1882a). 

M. serialis is a widely distributed form, long considered as M. 
multiceps or confused with that form by some writers. It is of less 
economic importance than M. multiceps owing to its occurring in the 
connective tissue and musculature of rodents instead of in the cen- 
tral nervous system of wild and domestic ungulates, as is the case 
with M. multiceps. 

Five years after de Blainville's (1828a) record. Rose (1833a) noted 
M. serialis in rabbits in England and stated that warreners, before 



HISTORICAL SKETCH OF MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 57 

sending affected rabbits to market, punctured the tumor caused by 
the parasite and squeezed out the fluid. Rose described the pro- 
duction of daughter vesicles by budding, but did not find this or 
any other feature a sufficient structural difference between this para- 
site and the gid parasite to warrant making a new species. Later, 
Rose (1844a) described a new case and discussed the cyst surround- 
ing the parasite and the external budding of the latter. 

Leblond (1837a) notes that Dr. Emmanuel Rosseau sent liim a cyst 
a little larger than a nut from between the spinal membranes of a 
rabbit. Leblond identified the parasite as Cmnurus cerehralis. 

Leblond's specimen was later examined by Gervais (1847a), who 
makes a new species of it on the basis of the serial arrangement of 
the heads and the long folded neck. From the first feature he 
named it Ooenurus serialis. Railliet (1889o) refers this name to an 
article in theDictionnaireUniverseld'HistoireNaturelle (v. 6, p. 729), 
under date of 1845. This reference is correct for the date 1861, 
but there appears to be no such reference for 1845, and it is possible 
that Railliet has erred in giving this date. Gervais calls his form 
Coenurus serialis n. sp. in 1847, and it seems likely that this is the 
date of its first description. Stiles and Stevenson (1905a) appear 
to have followed Railliet in citing ^'Coenurus serialis GerYsds, 1847a, 
98; probably 1S45, 729, not accessible to us." 

Baillet (1858b) produced the adult tapeworm in the dog by feeding 
the coenurus from the rabbit, and described it but did not name it, 
as both the adult and larva seemed very similar to the corresponding 
forms of the gid parasite. Feeding experiments in which the attempt 
was made to infect rabbits and sheep with the proglottids of the 
adult tapeworm were not well carried out and showed nothing. 

Later, Baillet (1863a) produced the tapeworm again and named 
it Tsenia serialis. Proglottids with developed eggs were fed to 
rabbits and produced the coenurus. Ten attempts to infect rabbits 
with the eggs of the adult Multiceps multiceps and five attempts to 
infect sheep with the eggs of the adult Multiceps serialis failed. 
Baillet gives a very full description of the adult and larval M. serialis. 

Perroncito has stood out against the validity of this species. He 
records (Perroncito, 1875a) a coenurus from a rabbit, and although he 
finds a 3"ellow color present which he does not find in the cerebral 
coenuri of ruminants, he nevertheless considers that all coenuri arise 
from Tsenia coenurus. Later, Perroncito (1882a) finds the only dif- 
ference betw^een the rabbit and sheep coenuri to be in the formation 
of daughter vesicles in the former, and still considers them the same 
species. At a quite recent date (Perroncito, 1901a), this opinion is 
still adhered to. The same opinion has been expressed even more 
recently by Friedberger und Frohner (1904ar). 



58 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 



A careful study of M. serialis was made by Reinitz (1885a), who 
concluded that Lindemann's (1867a) Coenurus lowzowi was M. 
serialis, but that Boettcher's (1862a) Cysticercus hotryoides, Pagen- 
stecher's (1877a) coenurus from Myopotamus coyyus, and Megnin's 
(1880d) Coenurus polytuberculosus from Dipus sagitta were not. 

Kunsemiiller (1903a) has made an excellent comparative study of 
M. serialis and M. cerehralis. 

Brandegee (1890a) records the parasite from the United States and 
notes that two species of rabbits were never found infected, though 
hundreds were exammed, only the C^alifornia hare being infected. 
She surmises that the wolf is a probable host, and the coyote, lynx, 
and fox possible hosts of the adult cestode. 

THE HOSTS AND OCCURRENCES OF THE LARVAL MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 



Inasmuch as the list of doubtful and erroneous records is very 
short, such cases are included here with the certain and probable 
cases and their standing given in the discussion. No attempt is 
made to distinguish between hares and rabbits in the following list. 
They are all listed as rabbits. 

List of occurrences claimed for the larval Multiceps serialis. 



Host. 


Locality. 


Autliority. 


Notes and comments. 


Rabbit . . 


France 


De Blainville 1828a.... 
Rose 1833a 


One case. 


Rabbit (Lepus cuni- 

culus). 
Rabbit 




A number of cases implied. 
One case from vertebral canal. 


France ... 


Leblond 1837a . 


Do 


England 


Rose 1844a 


One new case. 


Do 




Gervais 1847a .•. . . . 


Leblond's specimen described as a new 

species. 
Produced adult worm in dogs. 
Produced adult and larval worm by 

feeding; failed to infect sheep with 

eggs of M. serialis or rabbits with 

eggs of M. multiceps. 


Do 


.do 


Baillet 1858b 


Do 


do 


Baillet 1863a 






Colibold 18(i4b 


Rabbit 


United States (").. 
Russia 


Valentin (date?) 

Lindemann 1867a 

Troisier 1874a 


Not seen; cited from Leuelcart ( 1865a. ) 
Described as Cernurus lowzowi; not 


Rabbit (L. timidus). 


Rabbit 


France 


available; considered by subsequent 
writers as M. serialis. 
One case. 


Do 


....do 


Arloing [1875?] 

Perroncito 1875a 

Cobbold 187()b... 


Per Railliet 1882a; Arloing in Brunet 
1875a does not claim to have found it. 


Do 


Italy .... 


Do 


England 


Rose's specimens in Guy's Museum and 

some in Oxford collection. 
One specimen in Cobbold 's collection. 
One case recorded and others claimed; 


Do 


Scotland 


do 


Do 


France 


Davaine 1877a 


Coypii ( Myopota- 

rmos cop pus). 
Rabbit 




Pagenstecher 1877a 

Perroncito 1878h 

Cobbold 1879b 


specimen exhiliited first shown by 
Bailly in 1861; claims that Prince has 
found this form in France. 
From Berlin Zoological Gardens. 

Listed from title; article not available. 


Italy 


Squirrel {Sciurus 


England 


Same case as Cobbold (1864b). 


vulpinus"!). 
Rabbit 


England (?) 


..do 




Klippdas ( Hyrax ca- 


Not given. 


.do... . 


rabbit. 


pcnsis). 
Gray squirrel 

Rabbit 


United States 

do 


Stewart 1880a 


vais (1847a) and Pagenstecher (1877a). 


do 


(1864b) case. 








Cited. 



OCCURKENCES OF MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 59 

List of occurrences claimed for the larval Multiceps serialis — Continvied. 



Host. 



Locality. 



Authority. 



Notes and comments. 



Squirrel {Sciurus 

vulgaris). 
Rabbit 



Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 



Rabbit 

Rabbit (Lepus cnli- 

fornicus). 
Rabbit 



Do. 



Do 

Rabbit (L. varia- 
bilis). 

Rabbit (L. califor- 
nicus and L. texi- 
anus). 

Rabbit 

Do 



Do. 
Do. 



Do. 
Do. 



Do. 

Horse.., 



Rabbit 

Rabbit {L. callotis) . 
Rabbit (L. cuni- 

culus). 
Rabbit 



Do. 



Do. 
Do. 



Do 

Do 

Rabbit (L. cuni- 

culus domesticus). 

Rabbit 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Goat 

Do 

Rabbit 

Cat 

Squirrel 

Sheep 

Horse 

Rabbit (L. califor- 

nicus). 
Rabbit 



Goat. 



Rabbit 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Rabbit (Oryctolagus 

cuniculus). 
Rabbit 



"Sage rabbit". 
Rabbit 



France. 
do.. 



Italy 

Germany (?). 
Russia ("?)... 

France 

....do 



New Zealand. . 
United States . 



France . 
do.. 



do., 

Russia. 



United States . 



England. 

Italy 



Japan . . 
France. 

do.. 

do.. 



United States. 
do 



Italy 

United States 

Not North Amer- 
ica. 
France 



.do. 



do.. 

Siberia. 



Italy 

France 

Germany (?) 



England 

do 

United States . 

Scotland 

India 

do 

Not given 

.'.'.'.'.do'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 

do 

do 

United States. 



.do. 



India. 



Switzerland 

England 

France 

New South Wales, 
Victoria(?) 



United States. 

do 

United States. 



Cagny 1882a. 
do 



Perroncito 18S2a. 

Braun 1885c 

Reinitz 1885a 

Raillietl889n... 
Railliet 18890 



Thomas 1889a..., 
Brandegee 1890a. 



Villain and Bascou 

1890a. 

Leclerc 1890a 



Railliet 18911. 
Voigt 1891a... 

Curtice 1892g. 



Robinson 1892a 

Condorelli-M a u g e r i 
1893a. 

Janson 1893c 

Megnin 1896 



Lucet 1897b.. 
Vignon 1897a. 



Ward 1897 b. 
Stiles 1898a.. 



Bosso 1898a... 
Hassall 1898a. 
do 



Railliet 1899b. 
Morot 1900c... 



Gallier 1900a 

Von Linstow 1901e. . . 



Parona 19021 

Buysson 1903a 

Kunsemiiller 1903a 



Byerly 1905a 

Jowett 1905/? 

Ransom 1905d.... 

Taylor 1905a 

Gaiger 1907a 

Holterbaeh 1907a . 

do 

de 

do 



do. 
do. 
S. E. Piper, in litt. 

Apr. 14, 1908. 
Curtice, in litt. July 

26, 1909. 
Dey 1909a 



Galli-Valerio 1909a 

Gray 1909a 

Henry 1909a 

Johnston 1909a 

Sweet 1909a 



Dr. Young in litt. 

Oct. 9, 1909. 
Thos. Large, in litt. 

Jan. 0, 1910. 
Hall 1910/3 



One ease. 

One specimen exhibited by Railliet in 
discussion. 

Number of cases not given. 

One specimen. 

Three specimens studied. 

One case. 

Second spinal case: simultaneous con- 
nective tissue infection with 9 other 
coenuri. 

Not available; cited from Braun (1894a). 
i Manv cases in California; paper read In 
1882. 

Not available; cited from Morot (1900c); 
one case. 

Not available; cited from Morot (1900c); 
several cases. 

One case; parasite lived over 2 years. 

One case. 

Number of cases not given; in Te.xas 
and California. 

One case; scolices with suckers. 
One case; under pericardium. 

One case; listed as Canurus ccrcbralis. 
Not available; cited from Morot (1900c); 

several cases. 
One case; 28 coeHuri. 
Not available; cited from Morot (1900c), 

who considers Vignon '.s Echinococcus 

a edenurus. 
Common in Nebraska. 
Doubtful case, already noted under M. 

multiceps. 
One case. 

Specimens seen by Stiles or Hassall. 
Do. 

Specimen with many abnormal sco- 
lices. 

Four cases with 4, 11, 20, and 70 coenuri, 
in each host; 1 in eye orbit. 

One case. 

Four specimens in St. Petersburg 
museum. 

Two cases. 

One case. 

One case; specimen collected in 1874. 

One case. 
Has found it. 

Specimen No. 1823 figured. 
Two cases. 

Do. 
Note of Gaiger's (1907a) case. 
Sic. 

Sic; error. 
Sic. 

Sic; error. 
Sic. 
In Nevada; several coenuri fed to dog. 

In Colorado and Califormia in 1887 and 

1888. 
One case: cysts in brain and connective 

tissue. 
One case; 1 specimen showed (i suckers. 
Has seen it in eye orbit. 
Coenurus attained volume of 800 e. e. 
Listed. 
One case. 

In North Dakota. 

In Idaho. 

This article. 



60 



THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 



The following specimens of M. serialis from the United States are 
available to the writer. 



Host. 


Locality. 


Collector and date. 


Collection. 


Lepus calif ornicus 


California. . . 


Curtice 1890 


B. A. I. coll. No. 1823. 


(?) 
New Mexico. .. . 


(?)1894.. 


B. A. I. coll. No. 1826. 




Townsend 189(5 

(?) 
Hay ward 1904 


B. A. I. coll. No. 2798. 


Lepus sp. . . 


(?) 
Michigan 


B. A. I. coll. No. 2608. 


Do 


B. A. I. coll. No. 3948. 


Lepus cali/ornicus 

Lepus c. walla-walla 

Do 

Do 

Lepus sp. . 


California 


Adams 1905 


B. A. I. coll. No. 3889. 


Oregon.. 


Piper 1907 

do 

do 

Hall 1910 

Young 1905 


B. A. I. coll. No. 14728. 


do 

do 

Nevada. 


B. A. I. coll. No. 14729. 
B. A. I. coU. No. 14730. 
B. A. I. coll. No. 15599. 


Do 


Nebraska u 


Coll. Hall. 









The first of the above lists shows that Multiceps serialis has been 
claimed to occur in the hare, rabbit, squirrel, coypu, goat, horse, 
klippdachs, sheep, and cat. Records of its occurrence in the hare 
and rabbit are undoubtedly correct, the records from the squirrel 
are probably correct, those from the coypu and goat may be correct, 
the record from the horse is doubtful, as heretofore indicated, and 
those from the hyrax, sheep, and cat are errors. 

Cobbold (1864b) found a ccenurus in an American squirrel, /Scmrus 
vulpinus% which he thought might be the same species that Rose 
(1833a) found in ''bladdery rabbits." This conclusion appears to 
be substantiated by the subsequent finding by Cagny (1882a) of a 
coenurus in a squirrel, Sciurus vulgaris, which had been caught young 
and kept three years. Cagny's specimen was examined by Megnin 
and Railliet who pronounced it Omnurus serialis. Kunsemtiller 
(1903a) thinks Cobbold's coenurus may be C. serialis. If these 
authorities are right in their identification of this parasite, its rarity 
in this host is to be expected, as the squirrel's food is of such a nature, 
consisting as it does largely of nuts, that fecal contamination by 
carnivorous hosts of the adult worm would only occur very rarely. 

Stewart (1880a) writing from the United States, says: "The 
presence of this parasite [Omnurus cerehralis] has been discovered in 
the liver of our gray squirrel and in rabbits, as well as in numerous 
sheep in this country." It is probable that the allusion to the para- 
site from the squirrel is a reference to Cobbold's (1864b) case of a 
coenurus in an American squirrel. The reference to ccenurus forms 
having been found in American rabbits seems likely enough from 
our knowledge of the common occurrence of M. serialis in this 
country, but Stewart's record is uncertain, as he does not claim to 
have seen such a parasite, nor does he cite anyone who has. 

Lindemann (1867a), according to a review by Rudnew (Linde- 
mann 1868b), described a Ccenurus lowzowi from the rabbit in Russia, 
in an article not available to the writer. This has since been very 
generally regarded as C serialis by helmiuthological writers, among 



DISCUSSION OF OCCUERENCES OF MULTICEPS SEKIALIS. 61 

whom are Pagenstecher (1877a), Moniez (1880a), Braun (1897a), 
and Kunsemiiller (1903a). The review of 1868 says there were no 
hooks in this form but other writers say the hooks were all the same 
size. Pagenstecher (1877a) says they were all the same size and 
finds the same thing in one scolex of his coenurus from Myopotamus 
coy pus. Moniez (1880 a) says the same and considers it either an 
error in observation or a teratological fact. Railliet (1899b) has 
found a great number of abnormalities in Multiceps serialis. In 
view of this fact and the unanimity of opinion concerning this form 
it has been accepted here as M. serialis. 

Pagenstecher (1877a) describes a coenurus which he identifies as 
Ccenurus serialis from the neck of Myopotamv^ coypus. Reinitz 
(1885a) and Braun (1897a) think this form from the coypu is not M. 
serialis. Moniez (1880a) and Railliet (1882a) accept it as M. seri- 
alis, and Kunsemtiller (1903a) states that he agrees with Moniez 
and Railliet and disagrees with Reinitz and Braun. In view of 
this disagreement, the form is provisionally accepted as M. serialis, 
as originally described. 

Cobbold (1879b) has the following: 

The klipdas or dasse {Hyrax capensis) is infested by a tapeworm. * * * Under 
the name of Coenurus serialis a larval cestode has been described by Gervais, the 
same parasite being called Arhynchotxnia critica by Pagenstecher ("Zur Natur- 
geschichte der Cestoden." * * *). 

In the index this appears as " Coenurus serialis of the hyrax." 

Cobbold is in error in stating that Gervais described Coenurus 
serialis from the hyrax. As has been pointed out, his specimen was 
from the rabbit. Moniez (1880a) notes that Cobbold has confused 
Pagenstecher's (1877a) statements, and Railliet (1882a) has stated 
that Cobbold has listed C. serialis from Hyrax capensis as a result of 
some confusion. 

Gaiger's (1907 <t) and Dey's (1909nr) records of M. serialis from the 
goat in India are provisionally accepted; a more extended discus- 
sion of these and other forms will be given in a subsequent paper 
dealing in part with the morphology of Multiceps spp. Holterbach's 
review of (jraiger's (1907/?) paper contains a number of errors in the 
list of hosts of M. serialis. 

The list of occurrences shows that the parasite has been reported 
from France, England, Scotland, Italy, Russia, Siberia, Switzerland, 
Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, and the United States. 
Whether the parasite occurs in Germany is doubtful. Pagenstecher's 
(1877a) coenurus was collected from a coypu in the Berlin Zoological 
Garden, and hence the origin of the parasite is in doubt. Reinitz 
(1885a) does not state where his three specimens were collected, 
but says that one was the specimen discussed by Braun (1883c) 
before the Dorpat Naturforscher Gesellschaft and the other two 



62 THE GID PAEASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

were from Prof. Seminer. Braun (1883c) says of the specimen men- 
tioned that he owes it to ''dem Herrn. stud. med. Hasenjager," 
from which it would appear that it was collected in Germany. Later, 
however, Braun (1897a) lists the parasite from Russia on the authority 
of Reinitz (1885a) and Voigt (1891a), but in giving the distribution 
of this form he does not mention Germany. Still later, Braun (Braun 
u. Llihe, 1909a'), A\Titing of the tapeworms of the domestic animals, 
refers to "Die in Deutschland noch nicht wohl aber in Frankreich 
beobachtete und sicher auch in Russland bei Hunden workom- 
menden T. serialis Baill." On the face of it, this statement can 
hardly be taken to mean more than that the adult T. serialis has not 
yet been observed in dogs in Germany, and Braun's English translator 
(Braun u. Liihe, 1910n') does not seem to have sufficient reason, 
especially as regards Germany for the statement that ''T. serialis 
Baill. * * * occurs in dogs in France, and probably also in 
Russia, though not in Germany." Kunsemuller (1903a) does not 
give any locality for his specimens. 

The common occurrence of M. serialis in rabbits in the western 
part of the United States makes it unlikely that this parasite was 
imported into this country from the Old World, while its wide dis- 
tribution abroad and its apparent absence from the eastern part of 
this country makes it equally unlikely that it was carried abroad 
from this country. Its presence in Oregon and in Siberia points to 
the strong possibility of its having spread by way of far northern 
routes over its present wide range of distribution. 

M. serialis has been recorded from the vertebral canal by Leblond 
(1837a) and Railliet (1889o), in the latter case with an accompanying 
infection of the more usual connective-tissue locations. It has been 
recorded from the pericardium once by Condorelli-Maugeri (lo93a), 
from the eyelid by Byerly (1905a'), and from the orbit of the eye by 
Gray (1909^), and by Mr. S. E. Piper of the Bureau of Biological 
Survey of the Department of Agriculture in data furnished the writer. 

The number of parasites varies from one, a very common record, 
to 70 in one case of Morot (1900c), and in size the cyst may attain 
a volume of 800 c. c, as in the case of Henry (1909a). The parasite 
may live over two years according to Railliet (1891i). Abnormal 
specimens have been noted by Pagenstecher (1877a) from the coypu, 
by Robinson (1892a), Railliet (1899b), and Galli-Valerio (1909a), 
from the rabbit, and Lindemann's (1867a) specimen was probably 
such. 

Successful operations for the parasite have been noted by Railliet 
(1889n) and Byerly (1905a). 

Mr. Piper, who has furnished the Bureau collection with speci- 
mens as noted above, has also furnished us data stating that the 



I 



OCCURRENCES OF ADULT MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 63 

parasite was fovmd in 7 out of 12 rabbits examined in Oregon, a pint 
of cysts being taken from the peritoneal cavity of one. Mr. Piper 
also collected M. serialis in Nevada in 1908, as noted in the table, 
and fed a number to a dog. The dog was shipped to this laboratory, 
but did not develop the adult parasite, probably owing to diarrhea 
resulting from intestinal irritation by too many scolices. The ^\Tite^ 
has since collected M. serialis in Nevada, and developed the adult 
worm by feeding scolices to a dog. Mr. Graybill, of this laboratory, 
has also collected M. serialis in Texas and fed it to a dog. Doctor 
Young, of the University of North Dakota, writes under date of Octo- 
ber 9, 1909, that there is a specimen in the university collection, 
unlabeled, and that rabbits which appear to be infected are seen in 
North Dakota; he himself has seen such a rabbit. Doctor Shantz, 
of the Bureau of Plant Industry, has seen such rabbits in Kansas and 
Colorado, and Mr. E. F. Chilcott of the same Bureau says they are 
common in South Dakota. 

Kaupp's (1910ar) statement that M. serialis is not common in the 
United States is hardly accurate. In certain Western States it is 
very common. 

The occurrence of the larval parasite in the muscles of its host, 
especially in the leg muscles, a common site, and its occurrence in 
such relatively enormous sizes, numbers, or quantities as are given 
in the more extreme cases of Henry (1909«'), Morot (1900c), and Mr. 
Piper, may be looked upon as an adaptation favorable to the parasite, 
serving to impede the locomotion of the secondary host and so 
increase the likelihood of its being captured by some carnivore which 
may serve as the primary host of the parasite. Brandegee (1900a) 
has also pointed out the presence of an adaptation here. 

THE OCCURRENCES OF THE ADULT MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 

The dog is the only host in which the adult Multiceps serialis has 
been found or produced. Thomas's (1889a) attempts to infect cats 
and ferrets by feeding them the larval cestodes failed, according to 
Braun (1894a), and a surmise such as that of Brandegee (1890a) that 
the wolf, coyote, lynx, and fox may act as hosts, has, of course, only 
the value of a surmise. At the same time, Baillet (1866b) early 
called attention to the fact that the larval parasite was found in the 
wild rabbit more commonly than in the domestic rabbit, and sur- 
mised that the usual host was some wild carnivore. 

Galli-Valerio (1909«') failed to develop the adult worm on ingesting 
two living heads from the larval parasite. The writer also has 
similarly failed to develop the adult worm on ingesting three living 
heads from the larval parasite. 



64 



THE GID PAEASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 
List of occurrences of the adult Multiceps serialis in the dog. 



Locality. 


Authority. 


Notes and comments. 




Baillet 1858b 


By experiment. 
Do. 


Do 


Baillet 1863a 


Do 


Baillet 1866b.. 


Found several times. 


Do 

Italy 

Do 


Bertolus and Chauveau 

1879a. 
Perroncito 1878a. 


One case in a cosmopolitan " d og of the regiment. " 
Not available; based on Railliet 's (1882a) state- 




ment that Perroncito failed to infect sheep from 
Cop.nurus serialis. 

By experiment. 

Not available; cited from Braun (1894a); by ex- 
periment. 


New Zealand 


Thomas 1889a 








Janson 1893c 


By experiment. 


France 


Railliet 1893a 


By experiment; claimed that Neumann has also 


North America 


Ward 1895b 


produced it; I can not verify claim. 
Listed. 


Do 


Sommer 1896c 


Stated on the authority of Stiles. 


United States 


Ward 1897b 


One case out of 20 dogs in Nebraska; others im- 
plied. 

Parasite seen by Stiles. 

Two cases out of 35 dogs in Nebraska; 20 speci- 
mens. 

One specimen; identification not positive. 

Specimen No. 2839 figured. 

By experiment. 

Rare. 


Do . 


Stiles 1898a 


Do 


Stevenson 1904b 




Cobb 1905a 


United States 


Ransom 1905d 


India 


Gaiger 1907a. 


New South Wales 


Johnston 1909a 


United States 


Hall 1910/3 


This article. 









ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE. 

As has been stated, Multiceps serialis is of comparatively little 
economic importance. It deserves attention from an economic stand- 
point largely because some scientists, especially the Italian, insist on 
identifying it with the highly important M. multiceps. 

Rose (1833a) states, as before mentioned, that when warreners 
meet with infested rabbits they puncture the bladder, squeeze out 
the fluid and send the animal to market. According to Martel 
(1909a'), this custom of puncturing through the skin of infected rab- 
bits is still in vogue in France. While the idea of eating the parasite 
is not a pleasing one, the danger from doing so is negligible as the 
parasite is apparently not transmissible to man^ as Galli-Valerio's 
(1909o') and the writer's experiments along this line indicate. Moreau 
(19090-) in a note on abattoir inspection in France, lists muscular coe- 
nurosis of hares and rabbits assufhcient cause for total condemnation of 
the carcass, but probably this practice would only be followed in such 
cases as those listed by Morot (1900c), where rabbits were condemned 
owing to infestation with 11, 20, and 70 coenuri each. In Morot's 
cases, a rabbit infested with only 4 coenuri was returned for food 
after the removal of the diseased parts. The writer finds that in the 
western United States the carcasses of rabbits infected with M. serialis 
are thrown away as unfit for food. 



SYNONYMY OF MULTICEPS SERIALIS. 65 

SYNONYMY. 

The generic synonymy lias already been given under Multiceps 
multiceps. 

Species MULTICEPS SERIALIS (Gervais 1847a) Stiles and Stevenson 1905a. 

1828. E [cMnococcus] veterinorum{?) of de Blainville 1828a; misdetermination. 
1833. Coenurus cerebralis Lamarck and Rudolphi of Rose 1833a; this combination 

should be attributed to Rudolphi 1808a; error; misdetermination. 
1837. Cxnurus cerebralis of Leblond 1837a; error; misdetermination. 
1844. Coenurus cerebralis of Rose 1844a; misdetermination. 
1847. Coenurus serialis Gervais 1847a. 
1855. Coenurus serdalis Gervais of Goldberg 1855a;. in synonomy of Taenia coenurus; 

this combination should be attributed to Goldberg 1855a; misprint. 
1863. Taenia serialis (Gervais 1847a) Baillet 1863a; first naming of strobila form. 
1863. Coenurus cerebralis? leporis cuniculi Baillet of Diesing 1863b; in synonomy of 

Taenia coenurus; not at present available, cited from Diesing 1864a, identical; 

this combination should be attributed to Diesing 1863b. 

1863. Taenia ccenuri cuniculi Baillet of Diesing 1863b; in synonomy of Taenia coenurus; 
this combination should be attributed to Diesing 1863b. 

1864. CcBnurus cuniculi (Diesing 1863b) Cobbold 1864b; name taken from MSS. of 
Rose. 

1867. Coenurus lowzowi Lindemann 1867a; not available, cited from Lindemann 
1868b; same form used once by Braun 1894a. 

1868. Taenia coenurus of Cobbold 1867a; error. 
1877. Coenurus lowtzoivi Lindemann of Pagenstecher 1877a; this combination should 

be attributed to Pagenstecher 1877a; misspelling. 

1877. Coenurus nov. spec, of Pagenstecher 1877a; Pagenstecher refers thus to the form 
which he identifies as Coenurus serialis. 

1877. Coenurus serialis Gervais of Davaine 1877a; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Davaine 1877a; misspelling. 

1877. Txniaserialis Baillet of Davaine 1877a; space omitted. 

1879. Arhynchotxnia critica Pagenstecher of Cobbold 1879b; error. 

1882. Caenurus serialis (Gervais 1847a) Perroncito 1882a. 

1882. Caenurus saerialis Gervais of Perroncito 1882a; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Perroncito 1882a; misspelling. 

1882. Coenurus serialis Baillet of Ziirn 1882('i'; this combination should be attributed 
to Gervais 1847a. 

1889. "CcenurMS spec? Pagenstecher . . . nonCoen.sen'ofeGerv."ofvonLinstow 1889a. 

1894. Taenia echinococcus of Herff 1894b; misdetermination. 

1897. Coenurus lowzoivii Braim 1897a; misspelling. 

1897. Coenurus loivtzowii Braun 1897a; misspelling. 

1898. Cenuro serialis (Gervais 1847a) Bosso 1898(T. 

1900. Taenia (Caenurus) socialis (Bloch 1780a) Gallier 1900a; error. 

1901. C[ystotaenia] serialis (Gervais 1847a) Benham 1901a. 
1901. Coenurus serialis Baill. of Gamble 1901<t; this combination should be attributed 

to Gervais 1847a. 

1901. T[aenia\ serialis Ball, of Gamble 1901(t; misprint for Baill. 

1901. Caenurus saerialis Gervais of Perroncito 1901a; this combination should be at- 
tributed to Perroncito 1882a. 

1901. Tenia serialis (Gervais 1847a) Perroncito 1901a. 

1901. T[xnia] (Coenurus) serialis Gervais of Yaullegeard 1901a; this combination 
should be attributed to (Gervais 1847a) Vaullegeard 1901a. 

1903. Toenia serialis (Gervais 1847a) Thierry 1903a. 



66 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

1905. Coenieri cuniculi (Diesing 1863b) Byerly 1905^; plural. 

1905. Ccenurus serialias Byerly 1905;-; misprint. 

1905. Ccenurus cerialis Byerly 1905^; misprint. 

1906. Coenurus scrialis (Gervais 1847a) Davaine 1877a of Stiles and Stevenson 1905a; 

Davaine 1877a is responsible for specific name; scrialis is not Gervais 1847a. 
1909. Cifsticercus serialis (Gervais 1847a) Gray 1909(T. 

1909. Tsenia serialis Bailet of Sweet 1909rt'; misprint for Baillet. 

1910. Ccenurus serialis Gervais of Johnston 1910(t; misprint for Gervais. 

Herff's (1894b) statement that Tsenia ecMnococcus is very common 
in the muscles of the jack rabbit in Texas may be considered as 
probably erroneous. Sommer (1895b) says of this: ''Herff must, 
beyond question, refer to Ccenurus serialis." Stiles also, in his 
review of Herff (1895a), states that this is probably C. serialis. 
Herff's (1895b) later statement that the parasite was a ''Compound 
cyst with tsenia heads attached to the walls, or sometimes only hook- 
lets floating in the liquid of the cysts," and his statement that the 
tapeworm, which he calls T. ecMnococcus, from the dog, was not more 
than one inch long, are not convincing. So far as available records 
show, T. ecMnococcus is very rare in the rabbit, and the fact that 
Herff finds a parasite very common in this host is itself evidence 
that the parasite was probably not an echinococcus. On the other 
hand, M. serialis is very common in the muscles of rabbits in the 
United States, and has been reported from Texas. The weight of 
evidence favors the idea that Herff's "compound cyst" was M. 
serialis. For this reason Txnia ecMnococcus of Herff (1894b) is in- 
cluded as a synonym of Multiceps serialis. 

MULTICEPS LEMURIS. 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

Cobbold (1859d) described a ccenurus from the liver and thorax 
of Lemur maco. (Von Linstow (1878a) has corrected this host name 
to read Lemur macaco.) Later Cobbold (1861e) named this parasite 
Co^nurus lemuris. In macroscopic appearance it does not resemble 
M. multiceps or M. serialis, and from the host and location it is more 
reasonable to accept it as a new species than to attempt to refer it to 
either of the two species mentioned. It has been listed as certainly 
or probably distinct by Diesing (1864a), von Linstow (1878a), 
Railliet (1882a), and Kunsemiiller (1903a). On the other hand 
Moniez (1880a) thinks this form probably belongs with Pagenstecher's 
(1877a) ccenurus from Myopotamus coy pus as a specimen of Multiceps 
serialis, and Pagenstecher also states this as probable. 

SYNONYMY. 

Species MULTICEPS LEMURIS (Cobbold i86ie) Hall igio/?. 

1861. Ccenurus lemuris Cobbold 1861e. 

1880. Ccenurus lemuri Cobbold of Megnin 1880p; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Megnin 1880p; misspelling. 



MULTICEPS POLYTUBERCULOSUS MULTICEPi^ SPALACIS. 67 

1880. Coenurus lemuri Cohhlod oi Megniu ISSOp; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Megnin 1880p; misprint for Cobbold. 

1894. Coenurus lemoris Cobb. 1861 of Braun 1894a; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Braun 1894a. 

MULTICEPS POLYTUBERCITIiOSTJS. 

HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

Megnin (1879d) describes a coenums from the leg of the jerboa 
{Dipus sagitta) . The following year Megnin (1880(1) named it Coenurus 
polytuherculosus and published a more adequate description. From 
the structure of the opaque, tuberculate external coat and of the 
hooks it seems reasonably certain that this form must be retained 
as a distinct species. Keinitz (1885a) and Braun (1897a) agree 
that this parasite is not M. serialis, and Kunsemiiller (1903a) does 
not think it likely. 

SYNONYMY. 

Species MULTICEPS POLYTUBERCULOSUS (Megnin i88od) Hall igioi?. 

1879. "Coenure polytuberculeux" of Megnin 1879d. 

1880d. Coenurus polytuberculosus Megnin 1880d. 

1894. Cysticercus polytuberculosus Megnin [1880dJ of Braun 1894a; this combination 

should be attributed to (Megnin 1880d) Braun 1894a. 
1903. Coenurus tuberculosus Megnin of Kunsemuller 1903a; this combination should 

be attributed to Kunsemuller 1903a. 

MULTICEPS SPALACIS. 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

Note has already been made of Diesing's (1850a) coenurus "ex 
Ipalacis capensis," tentatively considered as Coenurus cerehralis by 
Diesing. In a later article Diesing (1864a) corrected the host 
name to Spalax capensis and gave a general description, of which 
the only fact of interest is the occurrence of a single circlet of hooks. 
Such a feature was mentioned by Lindemann (1867a) as occurring 
in his Coenurus lowzowi and was found once by Pagenstecher (1877a) 
in his M. serialis from Myopotamus coypus. The location of the 
parasite is not given, nor are there any other data of value in species 
determination, so in the absence of other similar records from this 
host the species is retained on Diesing's determination and under 
the name given by Moniez (1880a). 

A discussion as to the probable host has already been given on p. 40. 

SYNONYMY'. 

Species MULTICEPS SPALACIS (Moniez i88oa) Hall igio;?. 

1850. Coenurus Diesing 1850a. 
1878. Coenurus spec? of von Linstow 1878a. 
1880. CoenurusspalacisMomez 1880a.. 

1902. Coenurus spalacis Dies, of von Linstow 1902q; this combination should be attrib- 
uted to Moniez 1880a. 



68 THE GID PARASITE AND ALLIED SPECIES. 

CYSTICERCUS BOTRYOIDES (species inquierenda). 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

Boettcher (1862a), according to Braun (1894a), describes a Cijsticer- 
cus hotryoides from the back muscles of a rabbit. The form is said 
to apparently arise by budding from a parent vesicle. It has been 
considered as Ccenurus serialis by Railliet (1882a). Reinitz (1885a) 
does not consider it as M. serialis, owing to differences in macro- 
scopic appearance and hook form. Von Linstow (1878a) lists it as 
'^Ccenurus spec.1 (Ccenurus cerehralis Rud.?)." Leuckart (1865a) 
says that since the size, form, and number of the hooks agree with 
those of Ooenurus [species not specified] there are no grounds for 
making a new species. Braun (1897a) doubts whether this was a 
ccenurus at all, and considers it a budding cysticercus, and Kunse- 
miiller (1903a) agrees with Braun. Inasmuch as the original de- 
scription is not available, and the authorities cited disagree as to the 
identity and even as to the generic position of this form, it has been 
retained here under the original name as a species inquierenda. 

SYNONYMY. 

Species CYSTICERCUS BOTRYOIDES Boettcher 1862a. 

1862. Cysticercus hotryoides Boettcher 1862a; not available; cited from Braun 1894a. 
1889. Cysticercus hotryoides Reinitz of von Linstow 1889a; this combination should be 

attributed to Boettcher 1862a. 
1889. Ccenurus spec. Boettcher of von Linstow 1889a. 
1896. C[oRnurus} hotryoides Bottcher of Braun 1896d; this combination should be 

attributed to (Boettcher 1862a) Braun 1896d. 

ACEPHALOCYSTIS OVIS TRAGELAPHI (species inquierenda). 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 

Cobbold (1861e), in a list of entozoa, lists Acephalocystis ovis trage- 
lapMiroia Ovis tragelaphus,w\i\\ the following note: "A solitary 
specimen filled with clear serous fluid. Probably an aborted Ccenurus. 
Spherical; 1 inch in diameter." 

In the absence of any morphological characteristics which could 
possibly relate this specimen to the genus Multiceps, and with no 
statement as to the location on which to base even a surmise as to 
the likelihood of its being a ccenurus, it would be useless to pass judg- 
ment on this specimen. 

SYNONYMY. 

ACEPHALOCYSTIS OVIS TRAGELAPHI Cobbold i86ie. 

1861. Acephalocystis tragelaphi Cobbold 1861e. 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



mil mil mil Mil Mill iiiiijiiii mill III II 

002 840 878 P 



